User talk:Raggz/Archive 1

ICC

Raggz, three days ago, you introduced controversial original research to the International Criminal Court article (“The ICC lacks any effective means to prosecute itself”). I explained clearly that you were violating Wikipedia's policies by making this claim without citing a source, and I removed the claim. I pleaded with you not to continue ignoring my comments, and I specifically asked you not to restore your claim without ensuring that it was directly attributable to a reliable source. You immediately restored your claim without bothering to address my concern. Two days later, your original research remains in what was, until that point, an article with no original research and a very high standard of referencing.

Please remove your own original research before blanking any more articles. Sideshow Bob Roberts 00:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I just checked the talk page, and I find no reasons there for most of the material that you deleted. May we address your concerns there? It helps me to be able to read the history to refer to the talk page. The citation that you are challenging is missing. I can't review it if it is missing? Do you know how to find it? Please shift to that talk page?

Oh, you provided the link, I just found it. Thanks. Raggz 01:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Rational for Iraq war

I think I wrote all the changes I made on the discussion page, not the talk page. (I was under the impression that the talk page and the discussion page was the same. My sincere apologies. --Luke (talk) 23:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

What is the "Talk Page"? Thanks. --Luke (talk) 23:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Another unsourced claim

In response to my comment asking you to remove your unsourced statement, you've inserted another controversial claim that's not attributable to a reliable source.

The ICC article now claims that “The ICC has jurisdiction over UN Peacekeepers, but will not investigate crimes by the UN”, and the only reference is to this article, which makes no such claim.

I've explained to you several times that when you cite a reference you must ensure that your source actually states what you claim it states. I have also asked you to reply to me here and let me know whether you understand this point. You continue to ignore my requests.

Sideshow Bob Roberts 03:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, my notes say that is the correct reference. I'll check, maybe it is the wrong one.

What am I ignoring? I fixed the text that you had problems with, now I will look at this issue. Is the last problem now solved - or not? What am I ignoring if I fixed the last problem? If I didn't fix it, what is the issue then?

I think you were right, the article is now better for the attention. Raggz 03:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The text was modified, are we done now? Raggz 04:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

No, you continue to add unsourced claims. (For example, “There is no evidence however, that such a tacit agreement does or does not exist” and “The ICC Prosecutor is unencumbered by any rules or limitations that preclude a de facto agreement with the UN to ignore whatever crimes may be committed by UN personnel”.)

In spite of about a dozen warnings, you continue to add unsourced claims, many of which are highly controversial or just plain wrong. All I ask is that you stop adding material to Wikipedia without making sure that it is directly attributable to a reliable source (you can't read between the lines, or offer your own interpretation of what the source means).

If you genuinely cannot understand why your behaviour is unacceptable, please say so here. If you understand what I'm saying, please stop immediately. Sideshow Bob Roberts 13:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not making deliberate errors. At this point, I'm not sure what the issue is, other than we are working on specific language to better conform to the references. I do have brain damage and a poor memory, lost 40 iq points. I don't know that my behavior is unacceptible (if it actually is). I do know that some of what I submit I later agree requires modification. Look at how much better the article now is?

“There is no evidence however, that such a tacit agreement does or does not exist” Unsupported directly, I agree, but not every sentence in Wikipedia has (or needs) a direct supporting citation. I suppose saying their is no known evidence, instead? There may be evidence that undiscovered? It seems unfair to not state that as bad as it looks, there is no evidence. The HF is acucsing the prosecutor of legally ignoring crimes within ICC jurisdiction. I can drop this sentence, but I feel the Reader needs this statement - because it is true and it is fair.

“The ICC Prosecutor is unencumbered by any rules or limitations that preclude a de facto agreement with the UN to ignore whatever crimes may be committed by UN personnel”.) The references say he can use his descretion broadly (art 15?) and without limitation on what he ignores? He cannot act without two judges, but he can ignore whatever he wants without asking anyone for permission? I suppose I could cite or quote the Statute's article, would that help?

Are you aware of any rule or law that restricts what the Prosecutor can ignore? In real life prosecutors make hard decisions about grants of immunity, why wouldn't this one? The ICC President states that the ICC needs the UN, it would not function in the field without it. Grants of imunity on war crimes was anticipated by the Statute, I have a citation I could add on ths, I've cited that the prosecutor can operate without limits upon his discretion in regard to what he doesn't prosecute. This seems a practical tradeoff necessary for any court without the necessary law enforcement arm, a structural problem that requires a practical agreement to ignore war crimes? What am I missing?

The issue raised widely is that the ICC prosecutor largely operates without any checks and balances. The Reader should have this addressed in a useful way. The example cited for abuse is the ICC ignoring crimes by the UN in the Sudan. There are many citations that suggest that the prosecutor CAN abuse the extremely broad discretion that the Statute provides. This section is important because it is an example of how these criticisims SEEM to be valid. The HF is making this point, if you review that citation. Raggz 15:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Yet again, you haven't paid attention to a single word I've said.

Your claim that “not every sentence in Wikipedia has (or needs) a direct supporting citation” is untrue.

Every single claim you make on Wikipedia must be directly attributable to a reliable published source.

If you can't find a reliable source that explicitly states that UN personnel have been accused of war crimes, you can't make that claim in the article (even if you know it's true).

If you can't find a reliable source that explicitly states that “the ICC Prosecutor is unencumbered by any rules or limitations that preclude a de facto agreement with the UN to ignore whatever crimes may be committed by UN personnel”, you can't make that claim in the article (even if you know it's true).

If you can't find a reliable source that explicitly states that “there is no evidence [...] that such a tacit agreement does or does not exist”, you can't make that claim in the article (even if you know it's true).

If you can't find a reliable source that explicitly states that all war crimes that were committed during the invasion of Iraq “were properly investigated and prosecuted by national governments”, you can't make that claim in the article (even if you know it's true).

If you can't find a reliable source that explicitly states that “legally the decision by the United Nations Security Council to not act in regard to the 2003 invasion authoritatively settles the issue of legality”, you can't make that claim in the article (even if you know it's true).

If you can't find a reliable source that explicitly states that “the ICC lacks any effective means to prosecute itself”, you can't make that claim in the article (even if you know it's true).

Please don't make any more edits until you've taken the time to read and understand this policy, as it is one of Wikipedia's two core content policies.

Do you understand this?

Sideshow Bob Roberts 19:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

"If you can't find a reliable source that explicitly states that UN personnel have been accused of war crimes, you can't make that claim in the article (even if you know it's true)." The source does not state war crime, just crimes. I will edit "war" out. Agreed. The source says that the ICC does not prosecute the UN Peace keepers from ICC member nations, even though the court has jurisdiction for Somalia crimes. The source said crimes, not war crimes.

"If you can't find a reliable source that explicitly states that “the ICC Prosecutor is unencumbered by any rules or limitations that preclude a de facto agreement with the UN to ignore whatever crimes may be committed by UN personnel”, you can't make that claim in the article (even if you know it's true)." This is true. My source says that the ICC prosecutor has no limits. He doesn't say this in reference to the UN. Point taken, say the former, not the latter.

"Your claim that “not every sentence in Wikipedia has (or needs) a direct supporting citation” is untrue." Actually policy says that support is required if challenged. It is filled with sentences without a citation on them. I can say :the sun comes up in the east:. When you challenge me I must support it.

"If you can't find a reliable source that explicitly states that “there is no evidence [...] that such a tacit agreement does or does not exist”, you can't make that claim in the article (even if you know it's true)."Fine, I will delete that sentence.

"If you can't find a reliable source that explicitly states that all war crimes that were committed during the invasion of Iraq “were properly investigated and prosecuted by national governments”, you can't make that claim in the article (even if you know it's true)." You are not paying attention. We covered this. The source states that, well that all potential war crimes brought to the attention of the ICC prosecutor were being handled (forgot the exact word) by national authorities. He did not say prosecuted, but the equivalent of "handled". The Prosecutor essentially said that all reports were investigated and national proceedings were in progress on each case. I have no doubt that there are unknown war crimes, but there is no source. This Prosecutor said that every single report that he was informed of was being handled nationally.

You were going to re-read this same source last week, and fix the "gravity" misstatement. If you don't, I will need to. You forgot, or were not listening?

Please don't make any more edits until you've taken the time to read and understand this policy, as it is one of Wikipedia's two core content policies. I will read the policy again.

Do you understand this? I have read everything and believe that I understand it all. Do you understand me? Raggz 00:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I re-read the policy, it reads as I stated, you are only partially correct. Please review it again? It is an important policy. Raggz 00:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

No Raggz, the attribution policy states that you may never make a claim that is “unattributable”.

Note the difference between “unattributed” claims (which are undesirable, but acceptable until challenged) and “unattributable” claims (which are never acceptable). Your statement that “the sun rises in the east” is not unattributable: I can easily find a reliable published source that says the sun rises in the east. However, you will not find a reliable published source that says ICC is ignoring war crimes committed by UN personnel. It is an unattributable claim.

In every single one of the examples I cited (and countless others), you made a controversial claim that was not directly attributable to a reliable source. When challenged to cite a reliable source that explicitly supported your claim, you have failed to do so in every case.

I don't care about mistakes you've made in the past, I'm just asking you to confirm that you understand the policy now, and that you will stop adding unattributable material.

By the way, I have no idea what you're talking about when you say I was “going to re-read this same source last week, and fix the "gravity" misstatement”. This is yet another case of you completely inventing things I'm supposed to have said. Sideshow Bob Roberts 03:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

We all forget things, no need to attack me over your memory lapse. Fine, I will handle the "gravity" stuff then.

We have a disagreement. About this I offer a hypothesis: You believe that we are discussing legal theory. I think we are working on an encyclopedia article. I do not want to debate the legal jurisdictional theory (a bit of talk page speculation was fun). I do not know if and when the ICC has jurisdiction over the UN crimes, even if you know, I no longer care. I'm quoting my reliable source - he believes it, and he wrote this, not me.

We have a section: Criticisms of the Court. I added a section citing what I consider an important criticism. Your reply is that the underlying legal argument is flawed, and then immediately another another lawyer agrees with you. You will notice that we are not working on the same question? I'm adding an important ICC criticism, and you are not discussing IF it is a criticism, but if it is a CORRECT criticism. I have no way to prove if it is correct or not, nor do I have an interest in trying.

You deleted this section - because I have not proven some legal theory to be valid. I object. You don't say this (in the end), your go back to sourcing. Fine, we can tweak the language if necessary. Stop repeating "read the policy" (which you again misquoted), I understand the requirement for sourcing and agree (1) it is important, (2) that you have helped me improve my citations. Thank you.

Perhaps you lack the patience for this work? You once suggested that I was "wasting" your time. Anyway, we get to start over. I re-worked the section, and believe that it is fully supported and more concise. What do you think? I re-worked it after consulting you extensively. I just don't agree that anything in this section is unsupported. The Heritage Foundation crticises the ICC, and I have sourced this.

The vocabulary lesson is interesting, I did not know those words. Thank you. I did understand the policy. I have added "unattributable” material and then removed it after listening to your claim for it being unattributable. I might have done this again with the revised material, but I never do this on purpose. You may demand that I never make another error again, but should I promise?

You said "you will not find a reliable published source that says ICC is ignoring war crimes committed by UN personnel. It is an unattributable claim." Actually you need to read the Heritage Foundation citation that follows the claim. I didn't think of this, I read it and quote it. What I will not find is a ""a reliable published source that says ICC is ignoring war crimes committed by UN personnel" that you will agree is legally valid. You have focused upon legal validity, which is what lawyers focus upon, but in this case the question is: was it an actual criticism? Perhaps my claim is unattributable and I don't yet know it, so convince me?

You continue to repeat that "my behavior is unacceptable", but aside from errors that are not behavioral, what are we discussing. Could you be a bit more specific? Raggz 04:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a moot court, and rules are not the purpose of the community. Instruction creep should be avoided. A perceived procedural error made in posting anything, such as an idea or nomination, is not grounds for invalidating that post. Follow the spirit, not the letter, of any rules, policies and guidelines if you feel they conflict. Disagreements should be resolved through consensus-based discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures. NOT Raggz 07:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The Heritage Foundation does not say UN personnel have been accused of war crimes. The Heritage Foundation does not criticise the ICC for not prosecuting UN personnel. You are the only person saying this nonsense. That makes it original research.

You constantly imagine things, distort what other people are saying, make stupid claims that no-one else in the world believes, and then accuse those who disagree with you of original research, POV-pushing, instruction creep or (bizarrely) “memory lapse”.

Since you haven't responded to my comment from two days ago, I'm removing this rubbish myself (for the fourth time). If you really want to add it back, please discuss your proposed wording on the talk page first and see what other editors think. If you make the same crazy, unattributable claims again, they'll be reverted again. Sideshow Bob Roberts 23:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Right to revolution

Simply put, no: Europeans generally do not have the right to bear arms or to revolution. C mon 22:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Our founders did not declare a right to revolution in our constitution, but put the right to bear arms in to protect this right. The right to revolution would at that time have been considered a natural right, and as such, did not require articulation. Our Constitution declares that we all have many rights not articulated and that these may be enumerated by Congress, as with the US civil rights act and the americans with disabilities act. Our founders articulated primary first generation civil rights and left second and third to later be articulated by congress. Raggz 01:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Article 25 of the United Nations requires (in regard to Chapter VII sanctions as with most of the 17 in regard to Iraq) "all UN Members to carry out decisions of the Security Council"

Conection

Hitler's support of the "liberation of Iraq" led to the weakend government allowing the Ba'aths to take over. Putting Saddam in power which led to George W. Bush's "liberation of Iraq" (76.1.35.153 03:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC))

I believe that you need an entire article for this topic. Raggz 03:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits

Some of your recent edits would seem to indicate you are not sufficiently conversant with some of the Wikipedia jargon you are tossing around so casually. For instance, you deleted a sentence from the Tyranny of the majority article (diff) as an "OR deletion". The text in question was merely a simple assertion that "In 1994, legal scholar Lani Guinier used the phrase as the title for a collection of law review articles". As this is a simple statement of fact, it is not a candidate for a claim of original research. The statement may turn out to be incorrect, or irrelevant to the article, but original research it is not.

Other problems include a puzzling deletion of a citation as "unreliable" at consensus democracy (diff; see Talk:Consensus_democracy#Original_Research for details), and deleting the opening paragraphs of participatory democracy (diff) as part of a "massive OR deletion" (I believe I saw another editor complain about you doing the same thing on another article).

I would suggest you gain some control over the rhetorical tools you are attempting to wield before making large numbers of similar edits. - David Oberst 09:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Your suggestions are valid, I will think about them. I'm new and know little. Thank you.

I have "blanked" (I think) three pages. I likely will "blank" a few more. When you come across an article that is entirely unsupported opinion of 14 paragraphs, what would you recommend? First I tag it OR, or Talk Page it, and later return and delete it. In one case I'm working with a motivated editor to reconstruct it, after blanking it. Mostly I work on the articles, but some are not worth the work, unless like for the one case, someone else wants to work on it.

I hold an opinion that "blanking" OR paragraphs, or even pages, is often a good thing. Sometimes I leave or tag the OR, when clear and sensible and not speculative. "The sun comes up in the east" works for me without a source.

Sometimes I make errors in judgement, as you have pointed out. Mostly I hear about such errors, I believe. Raggz 10:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

3RR

Please read Wikipedia:3RR. If you continue to revert, you may be reported and blocked.Ultramarine 05:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Edits

In response to earlier message on my talk page re my comments on the Democracy talk page ... actually I noticed some of your aggressive editing a while ago but didn't comment on any it at the time, since - as I've admitted - there's a lot of bad writing and POV/OR comment in Wikipedia articles, which probably needs to be dealt with (even though you and I might not agree on which bits exactly). But blanking huge chunks of text from articles, including complete paragraphs, and sometimes nearly entire articles - which a lot of other editors have spent a lot of time working on and building up - is just bad practice and should always be a last resort. For example you deleted nearly the whole of the Human rights and the United States article on the 23rd May; and when you removed large parts of the Participatory democracy article on the 26th May, you even left a note in the edit summary ordering people "not to revert" your deletions.

But worse than this is the fact that you are yourself inserting a large amount of POV & OR material into articles, without accurate (or sometimes even any) references or citations, such as your "What is Democracy" piece in the Democracy article. In the Liberal Democracy article you also for example inserted the "Right to bear Arms" into the list of rights that are considered "essential" for Liberal Democracy. It seems that you will unilaterally and repeatedly take out text where you disagree politically with what it says, and then claim you are doing so on the basis of it being original research; but will quite happily insert your own unreferenced assertions and analysis in other places. It's this apparent double standard that got to me. Others have pointed out specific problems with attribution in a lot of your editing as well.

Oh and as for the nationalism/far right politics issue, yes you put a note in the talk page before making your deletions, but I didn't happen to see it at the time, so couldn't have registered my opinion. The fact that no-one said anything to object doesn't mean 1000s of people saw your proposal and that they all implicitly agreed with it. --Nickhh 14:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

"Are we just discussing the opening to democracy and a few words under liberal democracy?" No, I used both of those simply as examples of your general editing behaviour, as I clearly stated. There are many other examples, as your recent edits to the Human Rights in the US article shows. If you want to go somewhere and state how great and unimpeachable the US is, and how any criticism of it is mistaken or "unproven", please start a blog, invite people to leave comments on what you have to say, and leave a flawed, but at least consensual, encyclopedia alone--Nickhh 21:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi .. this whole debate we're having makes me remember why I've avoided the politics pages on Wikipedia in the past, and why I don't make much more than the occasional edit myself. People end up having arguments and edit wars, and I'm not even sure much wiki product of any use emerges at the end of them. And no I never claimed that you'd actually said the US was "unimpeachable", but it's quotes like this one which you wanted kept in an article which led me to make the observation - "The United States has worked throughout it's history to help advance human rights throughout the world. A notable example would be the use of military force to free Europe from the Third Reich, which likely would still be ruling most of Europe otherwise". You simply can't have sentences like this in a supposed encylopedia, as it is unverified assertion and opinion, whether one personally agrees with the point being made or not. My general issue with your editing has always been that you support or insert statements like this quite happily, but run around deleting, tagging or qualifying as "unproven" material that you happen to disagree with.

And as for the issue of US and human rights - where we can disagree on content as well as on process - I'm really not sure what the change in 1981 you were talking about refers to. Since then I believe the US has attacked and bombed, either directly or by proxy, Libya, Lebanon, Nicaragua, Grenada, Panama and Iraq among other countries (yes, sometimes with the complicity of my government too); it has also since 1981 and despite the current rhetoric about democracy, continued to bankroll and support dictatorships and military repression around the world, eg in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala. The US has also recently engaged - like most countries in the world unfortunately - in what by any definition is torture (eg the use of "waterboarding"), with official sanction. It's more than just a few "dark chapters" in the distant past, it's a pattern of ongoing behaviour. --Nickhh 12:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

ps i've also added something to the Talk Page on the Democracy edit issues. I'm probably going to drop out of all these debates now, for the reasons mentioned above, but thought I should at least add more detail to justify my deletion of that bit of your input --Nickhh 13:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Human rights and the United States

I just wanted to explain why I changed some things, so there is no dipute.

Introduction

• I removed "Few, if any actual violations have been proven" and "and again none of these have been proven" because there have been proven human right violations, for example not extending equal rights to homosexuals, the treatment of persons at Guantanamo Bay detention camp, and the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse.

Personal opinions - unless you cite the law and the court.

• I removed "At times the U.S. government has also been criticized for covert destabilization activity aimed at the overthrow or subversion of foreign democratic governments, individuals or parties, and it is generally accepted that this did occur decades back. No such events have been proven in recent decades as US policy has changed." and reworded it to "The United States has been criticized for allegly violating the national sovereignty of Iran, Guatemala, Chile, Nicaragua, and Iraq." because the original sentence is not specific.

Fine.

• I removed the quotes on "torture", the second and thrid time and term was used because quotes on a single word, which is not from a body of text or from someone speaking, should only be used the first time the word is mentioned and not everytime it is used.

An improvement.

Alleged violations of national sovereignty

• I removed "There has however, never been any finding of any violation of international law." from intro and under Nicaragua beacuse The case of Nicaragua v. United States was heard by the International Court of Justice which found that the United States had violated international law in the removal of the Nicaraguan government.

Good work, I didn't know that. It is an important fact.

• I put citation needed tags after "There has however, never been any finding of any violation of international law." type statments regarding Iran, Guatemala, Chile, and Iraq beacause it may be that it found it was against international law, but has not been referenced on this article. Sources are needed to back up this statement.

Torture, abduction and abuse

• I removed "but these alegations are unproven" from "Certain practices of the United States military and Central Intelligence Agency have been condemned domestically and internationally as torture but these alegations are unproven" and replaced it with a reference, [1].

I will look at this.

• I removed "under the Geneva Convention" from "Administration has categorized a large number of people as unlawful combatants under the Geneva Convention" becauase this is a false statement; there is no category for unlawful combatants under the Geneva Convention, this term is used to apply to U.S. laws.

I have read the Geneva Conventions and disagree. If you have also read it and disagree, we have a disagreement. The Conventions are very specific as to coverage and not. The section of relevance says that if you carry your weapons "at minimum" you may have protection. If you are hiding as a civillian when captured, you have no protection. Will you read up on this? Raggz 00:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Sexual orientation

• I removed "The marriage laws of the United States fully comply with the Constitutional protections of all citizens and with all applicable US law. They would not comply with the law in Europe, but few nation's laws would do this" cecuase it is original research. The equal protection cause states that all people should be treated equal. Denying rights to a certain group of people because of their lifestyle is a violation of the constitution. I know this isn't against US law, as marriage is defined as between a man and women on a Federal level as in most states; however, it also does not comply with the Constitutional protections of equality.

Personal opinions - unless you cite the law and the court.

Mass surveillance

• I removed "In all cases under dispute within the United States involving survelliance, the same practice would be legal anywhere else in the world. The US has strict privacy laws in this regard" because this article isn't about if alleged violations of human rights are legal or illegal, but rather if they are violations of human rights and freedom of expression is a human right.

OK, do you agree that the civil right of privacy is greater in the US than anywhere? I don't know the laws of every nation in the world, but I know that in Western Europe suspected terrorists are subject to less restrictive survelliance laws. Can you name one nation where the government is restricted from listening to international calls made to suspected terrorists? Raggz 00:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

If there are any disputes to my edits, please contact me to resolve instead of reverting my edits. Thanks. —Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 21:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

As long as you revert the issues we discuss that we come to agree on. Raggz 00:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Police Brutality The sources I provided in the police brutality section were all concerned with police brutality in the U.S. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch were two of the sources quoted. Both of these organizations agree that police brutality is a serious problem in the U.S., and the sourced articles were about police brutality in the U.S. The New York Times article, the USA Today article and the ACLU article were all about police brutality IN THE U.S. Please restore the deleted material.122.31.178.226 (talk) 05:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Democracy

Raggz, thanks for your informative message - it's much appreciated. It's good to learn that one of those people was reprimanded, but there's more than one person there who needs to change their behaviour. You're the only one there I consider to be polite. I'm sorry, but I do not feel at all inclined to return to the Democracy article. I agree that it is a very important topic, but issues of basic courtesy aside, I think it needs rewriting from scratch by people with enough common ground beneath their feet to collaborate efficiently and productively. I also believe it should be rewritten by people with a strong relevant academic background. So please let's just leave it at that. All the very best. Rubywine 10:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

We agree on the need for to start from scratch. We agree that the group now working on it is not progressing toward making it better. Even though we have not agreed upon content, this article needs your attention. Hopefully after a vacation, you may return. I really am coming to the pov that we need a political theory of democracy article. The theoretical expressions and permentations of democracy should be covered, but not fully explored under Democracy itself.

I'm fine with skilled people writing the article and I'm fine with my contribution being deleted. I just want someone to do a better job first. Having an democracy article that deliberately ignores majority rule, universal sufferage, and liberal democracy is a major problem for me. How they get covered is not a big problem, as long as they find a fair description. This is my frustration, people who veto these subjects because they consider these subject irrelevant. Tyranny of the majority is another key concept missing. My text failed to add it properly, but we must add it properly. Iraq thinks that with Saddam gone, under democracy the majority rules. They are correct, they may choose to exercise the same power Saddam exercised in the same way, and it is democracy. Democracy unrestrained, an illiberal democracy is a threat to the people and their neighbors. The Third Reich was an illiberal democracy. My vision for the article is beyond my ability to write (apparently), that democracy alone is very dangerous. This is not OR, but echoes the entire literature of Jeffersonian democracy. Please watch the page, and WHEN the tone shifts to collaberation, please return? Raggz 19:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

You've made some excellent points there, very eloquently, with which I totally agree. In fact I would go further. I believe that the editors who are currently attempting to monopolise the article are deliberately excluding references to majority rule, universal suffrage, and liberal democracy - and indeed tyranny of the majority, another key concept which should be addressed - in an organised attempt to subvert and reinvent the meaning of "democracy". While I despise what they are doing, I am not at all motivated to get stuck into an entrenched battle with aggressive rightwingers over a Wikipedia article. (I choose other battlegrounds.) I actually looked around for a way to contact the Wikipedia project people to alert them to what is going on there, but I could not see anyone who looked as though they would be receptive. I also thought that if the article has been given a grade as high as 'B', then the people who reviewed it (to be generous to them) were really not paying attention. In the end I decided that if the anti-democrats are allowed to do their worst, i.e. produce a travesty, then some others are bound to come along later, throw up their hands in horror, and start again. Because that's the strength of Wikipedia.

The thing is, while I think Wikipedia is a highly useful and interesting web site, I don't regard it as an authoritative publication. I see it as a huge social experiment. So the fact that this article is in such poor shape doesn't upset me. It is merely a reflection of political struggle, rather than "the state of human knowledge".

I feel very flattered that you have made efforts to try to persuade me to return. Thank you for acknowledging the tiny contribution I made, so generously. In return I would like to say that I think you write clear and beautiful prose, when you are writing informally. When writing for Wikipedia, I think you should try to develop your arguments more, so that your key points are supported, rather than making assertions which can be rather puzzling and startling. Until I read your comment above, I couldn't figure out where you were coming from. Although I certainly do not underestimate the difficulty of trying to write anything at all with a group of determined bullies going for your throat! OK then, I will keep an eye on Democracy, and I will consider contributing further, if there's an opening for an editor - I don't have the depth of knowledge to rewrite from scratch. However until those people depart, there's no chance that the tone will shift to collaboration. Rubywine 06:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Original research

The Heritage Foundation source does not say UN personnel have been accused of war crimes. The Heritage Foundation does not criticise the ICC for not prosecuting UN personnel. You are the only person saying this nonsense. That makes it original research.

I've already pointed this out several times (both here and on the ICC talk page) and you haven't bothered to reply to my comments but you've restored this rubbish to the article four times.

I don't know why I keep wasting my time leaving messages here as you refuse to listen. Sideshow Bob Roberts 13:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

We went through this before. I said "crimes", you complained about "war crimes" and I changed the language to war crimes. Then I changed it back to crimes, because that is what the article says. As you know, gender crimes under Article 7 of the Statute are a "crime against humanity". Is visiting a brothel a crime against humanity under the statute? I don't know, I have never read Article 7, but the literature says raping children is and that brothel visits (underage prositution) may be as well. You will note that I added a citation that supports your view? Personally, I'm glad that the UNSC passed a resolution permitting the prosecution of UN personnel for such crimes, I hope the ICC indicts the UNSG. The legal validity of the HF criticism is not our issue anyway. It is interesting, and if a bit of OR has crept into the article I will remove it - if you point to it. So far, you say it is all OR, even the quote of the ICC President.

We have a section for criticisim of the ICC, the HF suggests that the UN pecekeepers should get ICC attention for crimes. You read it, you know it is there. How would you describe their criticism? If it is a matter of changing the text, I will work with you. If it is a matter of deleting actual criticism to advance a pov, I will resist. Would just quoting the HF statement work better, then we will not have to debate what he said? You could start working on the article, not censoring it? Quoting him won't make you happy, only exclusion of the HF pov will?

I always respond to your comments. There are a lot, maybe I missed them? You really only suggest massive deletions, which I then resist. You deleted the quote by the ICC President criticising the ICC's lack of ability to arrest ar criminals as a structural flaw. Why? Knowing you senstivity to any criticisim of the court, I was careful to quote him, not paraphrase him.

I'm sorry you feel that I don't listen and that you feel that you are wasting your time. I'm glad that you added a Talk Page. Editing does require patience. Raggz 19:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Raggz said "Is visiting a brothel a crime against humanity under the statute? I don't know, I have never read Article 7, but the literature says raping children is and that brothel visits (underage prositution) may be as well. You will note that I added a citation that supports your view?"

Article 7 says

"(1) For the purpose of this Statute, "crime against humanity" means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:

It then proceeds to provide in paragraph 2 "For the purpose of paragraph 1:

"Attack directed against any civilian population" means a course of conduct involving the multiple commission of acts referred to in paragraph 1 against any civilian population, pursuant to or in furtherance of a State or organizational policy to commit such attack;"

There are two clear threshold issue relating to crimes of humanity - first that the particular acts must be committed "as as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack". Second, the particular acts must consist as part of "a course of conduct involving the multiple commission of acts referred to in paragraph 1 against any civilian population, pursuant to or in furtherance of a State or organizational policy to commit such attack;"

The Heritage foundation document which you quote does not imply, nor is it reasonable to infer, other than through extrapolation, that the scandal of the "crimes" which have been committed by UN personal meets those threshold requirements. Rather it says, as you quote:

"over 150 allegations of sexual abuse have been made against the civilian and military personnel deployed on the U.N. peacekeeping mis­sion in the Democratic Republic of the Congo— including persons from a number of ICC parties — but few prosecutions or investigations are ongoing."

Sideshow Bob's point, and I agree with him, is that you have extrapolated from this that what they are saying is that crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court have been committed. That is not what it says. However from this, you purport to begin this section of the article with the following sentence

"The ICC has not investigated allegations of more than a hundred cases of crimes by members of UN Peacekeeping missions, even though some of the alleged crimes were committed by the forces of ICC member nations." In the second last sentence you write "The ICC has jurisdiction over UN Peacekeepers, but will not investigate crimes by the UN"

You are inviting readers to infer that the ICC has failed to investigate crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court.

On the talk page you say:

"soldiers from ICC nations routinely commit crimes with impunity, and that the ICC prosecutor has failed to investigate. When an occupying army (UN or not) emerge from an armored personnel carrier to seize and rape children as the UK Telegraph (cited) asserts, we have a problem? Are UN forces immune to war crimes prosecution? When you send wealthy armed troops into a poor country with no legal system and a powerless people, bad things will always happen."

Once again you are proceeding on the basis that these are crimes within the Courts jurisdiction which the ICC prosecutor has failed to investigate, as if there is some dereliction of duty of some sort, or a cover-up. However the issue remains that this is not what the Heritage Foundation document says.

You also appear not properly to understand the processes pertaining to such alleged crimes. You finish this section of the article with a reference to the fact that "The UN Office of Internal Oversight Service's most recent report did not include the ICC in regard to internal UN criminal oversight." There is no reason why the UN's report on internal criminal oversight should refer to the ICC. The document is concerned with the UN's internal processes. The ICC is functionally distinct from the UN. So the point is not relevant. However once again, its inclusion invites the reader to infer that some sort of cover-up or dereliction of duty is afoot as far as the ICC, and its connections/relationship with the UN is concerned.

So the problem with this section of the article is that it is a collection of different matters gleaned by you from your researches from which you extrapolate a particular criticism, which is not actually grounded in principal source you mention. Around this you build your own framework to propound something which is clearly your own point of view that "something should be done about this", and the ICC should be put in the frame. Diranh 19:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

An awsome and insightful critique. I cede on every point you challenge. Please revise the article to revise or delete my errors, while preserving valid criticisms. The legal theory is most enlightening, and I thank you for taking the time to explain complex legalities in a way that I understand them. Raggz 20:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Raggz, please forgive the personal comment. Reading the discussion above, and other discussions, I cannot help but feel that your intellectual energies might be better engaged in writing as a political journalist, blogger or activist, and publishing your work under your own name, than in trying to write Wikipedia articles as an anonymous editor. What you are trying to say and achieve here is admirable - with your strong sense that "something should be done", you could become an opinion leader - but this is not the right platform for it, and the audience here is not the right audience. You will constantly meet objection and obstruction for being polemical here. If you were writing in a more appropriate context, you would meet with encouragement and collaboration. Once again, all the very best. Rubywine 08:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Diranh, thank you for taking the time to explain all this. I would've done it, but I'm fed up writing long explanations only for Raggz to ignore them or misquote me.

Raggz, I'm not sensitive to criticism of the Court. In fact, I created the "Criticism" section and contributed several well sourced criticisms. I've also restored criticisms to the article when you've deleted them. What I am sensitive to is people adding unattributable nonsense to the article. You've done a lot of this, and I've removed most of it but I've usually had to argue with you for a few days and make the same point five or six times before you've finally agreed to what should have been obvious from the start if you'd just listened.

The article is still riddled with unattributable nonsense. Several controversial claims have links to sources but the sources don't say what the article claims they say. All of this was added by you. Eventually I'll remove it all but I know that, in each case, you'll revert me several times before finally accepting what should have been obvious all along.

I do hope that we can work together in the future but I ask that, when I remove material you've added, you read my comments carefully and consider whether I may be have a point, instead of just reverting my edits and saying "this statement has a source" or whatever.

Also please stop making personal claims about me (for example, that I don't understand the policies I cite, or that I suffer from memory lapses) and attributing ridiculous opinions to me without first taking the time to read my comments properly and understand them.

I note that, though you now agree that your “Crimes by UN Personnel” section is original research, you haven't bothered to delete it. This contrasts starkly with the time and enthusiasm you devote to deleting material you disagree with, often for patently spurious reasons. Since you added this rubbish to the article five times, it would be nice if you could take the time to remove it now rather than expecting someone else to come along and clean up your mess.

Incidentally, I've always had a talk page, as does every user. Your repeated claims (first that I didn't have a talk page and then thanking me for finally getting one) are particularly strange since you left a message on my talk page last week. Sideshow Bob Roberts 14:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

European Law & torture

I have now explained my edit on the relevant talk page. And I am not trying to "hide" anything. I think the court's decision is wrong and shocking, and would happily have it publicised further - but it doesn't say what you claim it does, and nor does it have anything to do with the fact that some Europeans (and others around the world, including people in the US) have described recent US interrogation techniques as amounting to torture --Nickhh 21:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I am most pleased that we have begun the process of positive collaberation. Perhaps you now understand why Americans are annoyed by claims of torture from Europeans? Have we managed a bit of cross-cultural exchange?

Since we have an article on HR in the US, we should contrast with the world and the EU? If you want to discuss torture - FIRST define the context where the practices are legally defined as torture.

Please correctly edit the article, not revert it? I am reverting now so that we may edit the text. 21:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Again I have replied on the article's talk page. I did not of course "revert" anything, I removed two inaccurate and irrelevant sentences which I spotted. They had apparently been there for a while (and I did not know who the author was when I removed them). Removing inaccurate information IS editing. Revert if you like, I'm tired of fighting one-person battles over simple issues of fact which should not be contentious, if editors took the time to examine the issues properly rather than inserting their own prejudices and then pretending they are backed up by valid sources. Plus, for the fourth time - as a matter of principle and logic, outside the scope of any wikipeda article - the fact that the ECHR made a decision 30 years ago does not mean that from then on, no Europeans can ever allege torture when they think they see it (whether it's torture by the US, Saudi Arabia or their own governments) --Nickhh 08:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

We are working on an article, Human Rights in the US. Torture is an allegation, so we ask what exactly is torture? The question is if you accept that Ireland vs. UK is the present law in the EU in regard to what torture is? The five techniques are illegal, but not so serious as to be torture in the UK? It is important to correct the article if this is untrue. Of course your opinion may be whatever, but help us out, do you believe that Ireland v UK is not the present law for the EU? Raggz 13:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

As I've said, I give up and will not participate any more in editing or discussion. I simply find it too frustrating, as it would appear do several other editors who have come across your often bizarre, inaccurate, unsourced or irrelevant insertions and deletions to articles. When these are pointed out to you, you respond with a combination of irrelevant queries on talk pages going down the same tangent you started off on (or a repetition of questions which have already been answered), combined with promises to correct any mistakes, and apparently sincere requests for help with editing. You then just carry on as before. Sorry to be so hard about this, but as a very occasional editor, I've got better things to do with my time than fill up Wikipedia talk pages --Nickhh 16:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Capital punishment

The statement,

“ The authority to ban or retain capital punishment within the United States is reserved to the individual states, and the federal government lacks authority to do this, except for federal crimes. ”

is incorrect. As you appear to concede, the federal government includes the Supreme Court, which could ban capital punishment (it is irrelevant that they have found it to be constitutional, the point is that they retain the power to do so). Your edit suggests that no entity within the federal government has the authority to ban it, which simply isn't true. If you think I'm incorrect I'd be happy to discuss it more on the talk page. Cheers, JCO312 01:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

You keep adding this thing about Europe, and that's wrong too. Something like 2 countries in Europe allow capital punishment during war, so it's accurate to say that "most countries in Europe" have banned it. It is simply FALSE to say that "most have banned it except for war." 2 countries is not "most". Please read [2] for the details on this. Cheers, JCO312 05:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

More original research

I notice that, despite dozens of warnings, you continue to insert ridiculous original research into articles related to the Iraq War. Please see my comments at Talk:Legality of the Iraq War and either find sources that explicitly support your claims or delete them. Sideshow Bob Roberts 02:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

United States and the International Criminal Court

Thanks for your message on my talk page. As with you I desire to create an NPOV article and readily acknowledge my own bias. Some of your amendments I would agree to. However, a number of your statements are just plain factually wrong. Please have a look at these on the talk page. The article does need to be NPOV, but it also needs to be accurate. It would be helpful if you could take a bit of time trying to get a better understanding of how the court works (perhaps have a read of the International Criminal Court article) before making edits. Thanks AndrewRT(Talk) 11:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

Your constant editorializing is intolerable. I request urgently that you read WP:NPOV. smb 12:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Please note that an RfC is being prepared against you over your constant insertion of factual errors and original research into Wikipedia articles. If you do not stop your disruptive editing, I will make a more serious and formal complaint against you and - hopefully - have you barred from editing for effective vandalism. Editors such as myself and other should not have to waste time continually correcting edits like these every day [3], [4]. You do not have the right to insert falsehoods and nonsense into articles here, and then drag others into long debates on the talk pages about them before finally conceding the point. There are many other examples and this has been going on, on and off, since May this year. People's patience is running out. Nickhh 07:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

And here I thought that they were just working for the now former attorney general (as of the 17th). 199.125.109.120 06:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Legality of the Iraq War

If you're going to add lines like

"All three of the first Fairford Five trials ended in hung juries, but Pritchard, Olditch and Richards were remarkably all acquitted in their retrials. In short, two 12-person juries accepted the activists’ defence that they were acting to prevent the US air force from committing war crimes. However, as these were jury verdicts in a crown court, the rulings did not set a legal precedent."

Then please attribute it, as you are claiming that it's a quote. If a single person didn't say it, then you can't just put in quotation marks and throw a cite to justify it, since it contains WP:NPOV (remarkably all acquitted...). Cheers, JCO312 19:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

See talk. I was still working on the revision as you were editing it also. Raggz 19:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough (all I saw was the reversion of my removing the inappropriate text). I'll hold off on any further edits until you are done. JCO312 19:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. It won't be long. I accept your edits in regard to unreferenced material and will not restore this without reliable support. The quotes come from reliable sources and are subject to the WP rules for such. I will note here when I am done. Raggz 19:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I'm not taking issue with the use of quotes, but you have to make it clear that you are using them as quotes. In other words, you should write "according to so-and-so" or something like that, before you present the quote. As written, it looks like fact, as opposed to the opinion of a particular person. Sorry if I wasn't clear about my concern earlier. JCO312 19:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, that is an excellent point. Why are you always right? I never win even a point (sigh)... Raggz 19:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, done for now. Have at it. Raggz 21:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Confusing Change to Sovereignty

you added to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereignty the bolded section:

In international law, sovereignty is the legitimate exercise of power and the interpretation of international law by a state. De jure sovereignty is the legal right to do so; de facto sovereignty is the ability in fact to do so (which becomes of special concern upon the failure of the usual expectation that de jure and de facto sovereignty exist at the place and time of concern, and rest in the same organization). Foreign governments recognize the sovereignty of a state over a territory, or refuse to do so.

Frankly, doesn't make common or legal sense. Don't you mean to say something like below? I'll change to this unless you can explain what your doing. Thanks :-)

In international law, sovereignty is the legitimate exercise of power by a state. De jure sovereignty is the legal right to do so, as interpreted by international law...

Carol Moore 16:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

Don't edit user pages

Please don't edit other people's user pages. The appropriate place to communicate with other users is on talk pages, articles and theirs, and preferably more civilly than you did on User:Sideshow Bob Roberts. To edit someone's user page that way looks bad on Wikipedia, and it looks worse on the user who will take a argument to that extent. --Prosfilaes (talk) 18:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 06:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

New antisemitism

Hello,

I read your recent comments on the "New antisemitism" page. I'm wondering if you would consider reviewing the following statements: [[5]], [6]. The "new antisemitism" concept is more complicated than it seems at first glance; I'm hoping to work out a compromise solution, which is not particularly easy given the current polarization on the page. CJCurrie (talk) 23:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Gilad Shalit

Hi Raggz,

I just wanted to thank you for your rational approach on the Gilad Shalit talk page, and apologize for undoing your description of the semantic argument. I do greatly appreciate your efforts there to come up with a reasoned approach (even though I don't think that was the best one); this controversy has been going on for too long already for something as minor as it is, and I regret having to report Pedro for 3RR. Hopefully we can come up with a good compromise after he's unblocked, and I hope to contribute to that with you. :) Daniel^C/_T+ 00:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Just cos

Nengscoz416 (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Hi Raggz,

I've just left a message over at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents drawing attention to what I consider a systematic pattern of violating Wikipedia's core policies. Please feel free to respond at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Raggz. However, unless you want to be blocked from editing, I suggest you stop adding controversial claims that aren't supported by your sources.

All the best,

Sideshow Bob Roberts (talk) 05:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Human rights and the United States

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. —Viriditas | Talk 23:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

There was no such "bypass" and I have opened a discussion on talk. Your continued claims of false consensus are not supported. Your edits are in direct violation of WP:NPOV and continued violations of WP:3RR will lead to a block and/or ban. —Viriditas | Talk 00:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Please don't use my talk page to make false accusations. If you can't discuss the topic or adhere to policies and guidelines, then don't edit. —Viriditas | Talk 01:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

From the talk page: Please present a particular aspect of the lead section that you find troublesome and I will help you improve it. Removing NPOV is not acceptable. —Viriditas | Talk 23:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Viriditas (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is not a battlefield where challenges are made. This is a collaborative project where people from disparate backgrounds work together to write an encyclopedia. If that goal does not meet your expectations, than I suggest you take your campaign elsewhere. I do not have to "address your challenge". On Wikipedia, when an editor makes a significant change, such as removing NPOV from an article like you have done, you are required to explain your change. The editor reverting to the previous version does not have to "address a challenge". On Talk:Human rights and the United States, you have been asked to address the specific material that you find problematic and you continue to ignore this request. Please address the content and explain your changes. Thank you. —Viriditas | Talk 01:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with basic Wikipedia polices and guidelines. We use the term "lead section" to refer to an opening summary. And we do not use the names of editors in talk section headings per guidelines on talk pages, civility, and WP:NPA. —Viriditas | Talk 01:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

"Never address other users in a heading: A heading should invite all editors to respond to the subject addressed." See WP:TALK. —Viriditas | Talk 01:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Please show on the talk page how your edits improved NPOV (using diffs), and explain what you mean by "speculative allegations" with actual examples from the article. Thank you. —Viriditas | Talk 02:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikilawyering

Please review and familiarize yourself with the concept of "wikilawyering". It is unacceptable behavior. —Viriditas | Talk 09:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I happened to read it last night. I do not see that I am engaged in Wikilawyering, but I'm open to your claim? Could you be more specific? Raggz (talk) 09:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The section you left on my talk page "Violation of Consensus", is an example of Wikilawyering. Your continued attempts to avoid discussing the topic while continuously changing the subject and misinterpreting policies and guidelines is noted. Please stop, as your behavior is disruptive. —Viriditas | Talk 09:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I read some of the key policies you refer to, there is a LOT in there.

Might you share an example of what you mean by: "Your continued attempts to avoid discussing the topic while continuously changing the subject and misinterpreting policies and guidelines is noted"? I really have no idea of what you actually mean. Raggz (talk) 09:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Please do not continue to respond in two places. Since you have a great interest in learning about Wikipedia, I will respond here, only. —Viriditas | Talk 09:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the above, I suggested you answer the questions I have asked of you on the relevant article talk pages. Thanks. —Viriditas | Talk 09:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean. None at all. Raggz (talk) 09:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Then I guess our discussion has ended. —Viriditas | Talk 09:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

What was our discussion really about? Raggz (talk) 09:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

You are free to have the last word, of course. The discussion was about your wikilawyering, not only on my talk page, but on the discussion page of every article you edit. Your last comment has a whiff of WP:TROLL to it as well. —Viriditas | Talk 09:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Your comments are confusing. The policies you have cited voluminous. An example would be illuminative. Is this possible? Raggz (talk) 09:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you about the policies. Ideally, common sense should prevail. —Viriditas | Talk 10:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Raggz. Repeatedly tagging long-time editors is not very productive. Can you please find a better way to work with others? --MPerel 03:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm open to ideas. I'm just doing the best that I know how. Raggz (talk) 03:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Maybe I can help. Is there a specific edit in dispute that we can focus on? --MPerel 04:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The last issue that I left on his User discussion page. Read this and the bit of text since, and let me know how I might best work with Viriditas toward Consensus. I do need advice. Raggz (talk) 04:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

If you have time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Allegations_of_state_terrorism_committed_by_the_United_States#I_do_see_a_basic_problem_here Raggz (talk) 04:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 20:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth

I've looked over your edits and you do seem to be trying to edit in good faith. Don't let the various wild accusations tossed your way get you down-- that 'allegations of terrorism by the US' article is long overdue for some pruning and cleanup. You may wish to consult WP:SYNT as it most definitely applies to that article. Jtrainor (talk) 05:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice. Raggz (talk) 05:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Removal of content

Hi again. You have removed several sentences from the Legality of the Iraq War article, on the grounds that the reference supplied does not support the statement. While this may be true, I ask you please not to remove uncontroversial material, even if it is unsourced: for example, it is widely known that the Nuremberg Tribunal called the crime of aggression the 'supreme international crime'. (I have now provided a source for this, but it's not disputed by anybody that they said it.) Similarly, it's not controversial that many scholars have said that the war was unlawful: they may well be wrong to say so, but we shouldn't remove the lines that mention such views. Basically, while any unsourced text can be removed, it seems fair to me only to remove unsourced claims that are dubious or disputed. In some cases, it is more appropriate not to remove disputed text, but to add a template such as instead.

Anyway, I've got to go now, but if you have any further comments, leave them on my talk page or the talk page of the article. I will say that I think most of your edits have been good ones, and I welcome your continued contributions to the article. Thanks, and goodbye for now. Terraxos (talk) 07:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Trust is important. Perhaps this will grow.

I didn't know that the Nuremburg Tribunal said that, (I'm no lawyer). The article cited does not say this, so out it went. Many scholars may have said many things. Not being a legal scholar, I wouldn't know what many have said, I thought "some" better (without any cite) than "many". Putting in fact would be a good short-term approach. Raggz (talk) 07:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Stone put to sky

You are going to out yourself if you continue to use the circular logic, no point in moving and disappearing if you keep playing around on the state terrorism page. --208.120.68.62 (talk) 09:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello Stone put to sky. Your timing after my edit to your page makes it obvious who you are. "I yam who I yam, says Popeye (the sailor man). Raggz (talk) 09:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

You still think you are smarter then you are. I am telling you, keep making the same arguments you did before you left ... you are just going to out yourself. --208.120.68.62 (talk) 09:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello Stone put to sky. This really is the only WP account that I have ever used. I am myself.

You are like the old woman who kept dumping her garbage in her front yard. After complaining about the smell for a year, that neighbor moved out. The new neighbor then started complaining about the smell. What did that prove? Did it prove that the old and new neighbor were conspiring against her? They had the same issue with her, did that PROVE the conspiracy? Don't be that old woman Stone put to sky, clean up your yard and the conspiracy will stop. It really will. Raggz (talk) 20:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 02:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Positive attitude

Hello Raggz, Phyesalis has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

I wanted to leave you a note thanking you for your lovely spirit of collaboration, and for the lovely compliment you left regarding my contribution on Human rights. Phyesalis (talk) 23:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Linking

Hi Raggz, as I've tried to explain to you several times, you have a real problem wiki-linking properly. This is problematic given how often you like to (attempt to) link to wiki policy on the US State Terrorism page. For example you link as Consensus when you need to be linking as Consensus. Do you see the difference? If you edit this section you'll see the difference in my wiki-text and yours. Similarly it would need to be Synthesis, REDFLAG, etc. When you link to policies you need the colon in there as well as the WP and the name (often there's an abbreviation) of the policy like WP:SYN. Please take a look at this and let me know if this makes sense.

Also on that page you often quote from the article or from an external article without identifying the source. If you are quoting from a section of the article, please let us know what section it is since it's a large article, and if you are quoting from an external source please provide a link to that source by putting the url within two single brackets (e.g. [randomwebsite.xxx]). For example I might quote something from an article and then by linking with single brackets I link will appear at the end like [7].

Using links properly on article talk will make things a lot easier, thanks.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I will implement your suggestions. I do often cut and paste quotes, usually in italics. Raggz (talk) 19:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and the cutting of pasting of quotes is good, it's just that often it's difficult or impossible to determine where the quote is coming from. In those cases a simple reference to the section of the main article you are quoting or a link to the external article in question would be useful. As an example, I was wondering if you could eventually answer the question I asked here on the US State Terrorism talk page. You seem to be working on other matters right now based on your contributions so whenever you get a chance.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 11:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Normal

Please see my reply at Talk:Human rights and the United States regarding "Normal." I was suggesting that you bring you approach to editing more into line with the usual interpretation of Wikipedia policies. To see how Wikipedia editing "normally" goes, you might want to edit some page that you don't feel strongly about. Try Duck or Garage, or some other such innocuous and uncontroversial subject. I think a newer editor such as yourself might find it easier to see how to edit a page if you start with some less contentious subjects.

The section that you deleted was one that we already talked about. I already reverted it once, and responded to your reasons for deletion. I have reverted your removal again. Silly rabbit (talk) 22:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Fine, Raggz. You are welcome to seek mediation, and I shall participate in the process provided that other editors from the page in question are also invited to weigh in, since it seems that the subject is one of whether there was consensus that the material in question should be removed. Please note that I have already replied about what I meant when I said "Normal editorial process," and that you continue to misrepresent this phrasing in terms of a POV dispute, which it is not. Please stop using straw man tactics. I have already objected to this on several occasions, and it really does make it difficult to engage in any productive discussions with you. I find it very aggravating and would appreciate it if you would make an honest effort to understand my side (and that of the other editors on the talk page.) Thanks, Silly rabbit (talk) 17:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

On consensus

Once again, I did not revert your edit without consensus. By default, long-standing material in the article is there by consensus. If an editor WP:BOLDly removes it, then that is fine, and can in fact lead to a change in consensus. However, if it is not accepted, and reverted, then that means the edit was not accepted. For further clarification, I would like to invite you to read WP:BRD, as well as the policy page WP:CONSENSUS. If you have further questions on the Wikipedia consensus policies, then you can go to Wikipedia_talk:Consensus or the village pump for assistance. Thank you, Silly rabbit (talk) 17:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Rationale for the Iraq War

I explained why I deleted the content you added in my edit summary, but I appreciate you asking so I can explain again. First, to answer your question on my talk page, the content you added was not "well-supported" nor "relevant". You interpreted a primary source from 1990 regarding the rationale for the first Gulf War. In case you haven't noticed, Rationale for the Iraq War is concerned with the rationale for the 2003 invasion, not the one in 1990. Second, the allegations you describe are not even mentioned in the A-Class Gulf War article, so I suggest you bring it to their attention. I recommend starting with the section, Gulf_War#Justifying_the_war, right above the paragraph detailing a hoax by Citizens for a Free Kuwait. According to that article, Amnesty International issued a retraction when they discovered the hoax. It's quite surprising that you would ignore this retraction and attempt to add it back into the article. To make matters worse, you ignored the fact that John Healey, American director of AI at the time, formerly protested the "selective use" of AI's report by the Bush administration in testimony to the House Foreign Affairs Committee in January, 1991. The bottom line is that you took a primary source that had nothing to do with the rationale for the 2003 invasion and used it to support the rationale behind the 1991 invasion, even though it didn't support that either. —Viriditas | Talk 12:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Massive, unexplained additions

Hi Raggz, you recently added a bunch of material to Allegations of state terrorism committed by the United States. It was reverted by another editor and then myself. I reverted in part because I don't think most of it is relevant (way too much background information) but also because I don't think you discussed any of this on the talk page which is absolutely necessary for this contentious article. In fact you had dropped out of the discussion on talk for a couple of days before making these significant changes. Let's not edit war over this, instead explain the changes you want to make on talk and we'll go from there (though as I've said repeatedly I'd rather deal with the dozens of old issues you brought up before bringing up new ones, but you do not seem willing to do this). Perhaps some of the changes you made were good, but you made about 15 edits in a row with no explanation on talk (or for the most part in edit summaries) so I don't know what was good and what was bad. I don't think the new sections you add really work though.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 16:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

My understanding of policy is:

• That every editor is free to edit the articles so long as they comply with policy.
• That any other editor is free to challenge such edits if they seem to not comply with policy.
• That the WP consensus policy requires all editors to work together in good-faith sincere effort to reach consensus. It does not (to my recollection) formally require that edits be pre-approved, but apparently there is an informal consensus for this? Now that my edits have been challenged, I am required by policy to work to resolve any issues (which I would do anyway). Don't worry about an edit war. I view these as pointless and even counterproductive, and in addition they violate policy.
• That the Five Pillars require me to BE BOLD.
• I am obliged to delete SYN and OR errors, even without consensus. I should however seek consensus whenever possible.
• That your deletion of relevant material supported by reliable sources violated WP policy for supported material, and was done without first discussing your concerns or attaining consensus.
• That you were obliged to review each and every edit for merit before deleting it, and that each and every revert was a good-faith decision that it did not comply with policy? It requires consensus to delete material UNLESS the material denies some policy?
• That you were required to address your policy concerns for every reversion in TALK.

Do we agree about policy? There is much to learn at WP, and I may misunderstand policy. What part of the above might you believe that I misunderstand? I'm addresing the revert issues above as though you had made them, even though it was another editor, because you support these.

Do we agree on policy?

Why not make a list (on talk) of the three issues you wish to address first?

• The covert 1848 and 1851 US invasions of Cuba are possible examples of State terrorism by the United States.
• The new text offers the Reader a necessary context: The begining of a chain of events that led to the Cold War issues that are raised in the section. Still missing is the fact that Cuba articulated a well known threat to deploy and use weapons of mass destruction against the US. The article does not offer the context that the US was then under a real threat of nuclear destruction.
• One of my primary prior criticisms is that the Cuban material lacks even one reliable source connecting the US to Cuba following the Bay of Pigs. I now have done the research to resolve this, have now offered the FIRST reliable source linking the CIA and the Miami refugees. By deleting this reference, you reverted the entire Cuban section back a synthesis policy violation again. We had sources that there was terrorism by Cuban refugees. None of these sources are relevant to THIS article without a reliable source linking them to the US. Now we have this source - but you deleted it. Why? Raggz (talk) 22:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's keep the conversation here on your page for clarity's sake, I'll check back. On the "Allegations" page there is indeed--and has been for awhile--an informal consensus to discuss on a talk page before making major changes (perhaps you were not aware of this, though the first box at the top of the page makes this point). You did not discuss before making significant changes, and it's very strange for you to turn around and say to me "you were required to address your policy concerns for every reversion in TALK" when you did not do this yourself. When you make 15 changes and add several paragraphs without discussing it on talk at all (on a controversial article where there's been a conversation going on for weeks on the talk page which you have been participating in) yes, you can expect to be reverted. You did not even use edit summaries for most of your edits (as I already explained) and in situations of contentious editing you should be doing this (indeed you should always do this). I was not "obliged to review each and every edit for merit before deleting it." In this context the burden is far more on you to explain what you were adding in some fashion, at the very least with an edit summary, but preferably on the talk page.

Being BOLD is not a requirement for every edit, it's just something we can and should feel free to do at times. It's often not that advisable on contentious articles though. In the future I recommend that you always discuss significant changes on the talk page of the "Allegations" article first. You had been doing this in the past and I was surprised you had stopped. Finally, I know you see SYN and OR violations and that's fine, but others disagree with you about what is SYN or OR and what is not (this has been a perennial problem with this article) so again you should discuss first. Any progress that has ever been made on this article in the last 6 months or so has happened through back and forth on the talk page, so let's try to keep that going.

You made your last three points on the article talk page so I'll respond there since they are general article issues.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

hostages

I suggest you list down the GC notes on here: [8]. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 06:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, an editor has recommended asking about or recommending policy over to WP:IPCOLL. Good luck :) Xavexgoem (talk) 08:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Accusations

Hi Raggz, We already have discussed the reasons for my restoring the material in question (the first time around) on the talk page of the article Human rights and the United States. In the intervening three weeks, nothing has changed, and no valuable insight has been added to the thread. The only new part is your bogus declaration of "tacit consensus." Looking at the thread, however, the only consensus that appears to exist is to not remove massive amounts of text, and this stretches back to July of last year. I'm sorry, but you simply don't have consensus for this edit.

Also, I would appreciate it if you would not accuse me of WP:OR violations. That is generally not considered to be in good form. If you really feel that it is a violation, then you should report it to the administrator's noticeboard. Otherwise, it sounds like wikilawyering and threatening. Silly rabbit (talk) 23:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Silly rabbit, tacit consensus only means that when other editors withdraw from a good faith effort to comply with WP:CON, that in effect that they are silent and that there is consensus. There is no specific mention of tacit consensus in the English WP version, but this process is central to WP:CON. If you ask, I could stop using the phrase. Tacit consensus is directly implied by WP:CON, is directly adopted in another WP language version, and will (in my opinion) be applicable irregardless of what phrases I use or do not use.

WP:CON discusses shifts in consensus. Before my arrival there was consensus for an article that I percieved to be written from a narrow European pov. There was prior consensus. When I first objected, at that moment by WP:CON, consensus shifted and there no longer was consensus. My NPOV challenges required you to assess your own pov limits, and after your initial declarations of your pov limitations, you soon ceased good faith efforts to reach consensus per WP:CON. You refused to recognize that the prior consensus had shifted and suggested (1) that I leave the article and instead edit ducks and (2) that my pov was not "normal" and therefore need not be considered. Essentially you were attempting to reestablish consensus by the only two ways you could think of, because your pov limitations restricted stretching beyond these. The point here is that you did not comply with WP:CON.

The second serious challenge was about the OR. You insisted that claims about human rights did not need to be supported by reliable sources. After a huge volume of debate that was not resulting in progress toward consensus I attempted a new means to attain consensus on OR, mediation. This is what is the proper step when two editors sincerely have a disgreement and are unable to resolve it. I picked Universal Health Care from the many possibilities to mediate. Your position was that the UDHR mentioned health care, so this meant that the US had a human right to universal health care. I objected, because the UDHR does not mention universal health care, but only health care. I properly required a reliable source, and for a month you refused to offer one or to withdraw your OR. Finally I deleted it again (note that I had raised the question on 7 January and three weeks later this inquiry was not addressed). You reverted your OR again, and suggested that I bring this to the administrators attention (implying that this was my only recourse because you were done with communicating.)

You have often suggested that I misstate your positions. Have I done this here? If so, how? If you don't communicate I cannot know your positions. Raggz (talk) 21:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

* Normal. Please indicate (with a diff) where I said that your POV was not normal. You have repeatedly said this, and if you cannot provide a diff, then I will have to conclude that you are lying. This is the third or fourth time you have made this absolutely outrageous accusation, and I am quite frankly getting seriously fed up with this nonsense.

*OR. Now you seem to forget the context of your posting on my page. This was regarding the death penalty material, not the health care material, Raggz. This material is clearly not Original Research, as it is defined at WP:OR. So I reverted your OR deletion on the grounds that I find it completely without merit. I also responded to your objections on the talk page. You may not have agreed with my assessment, but that doesn't mean that you get to ignore it and delete the material.

*Health care. Raggz, please provide an exact diff that establishes that my position is that, as you say, "that the UDHR mentioned health care, so this meant that the US had a human right to universal health care." I never said this. And you have repeatedly asserted this: [9]. My argument was that the fact that there is a debate as to what the extent of government involvement should be is relevant to the topic of the article. That's all I said: "If (a) health care is a right, and some level of health care should be ensured by the government, and (b) there is a debate about the extent of government involvement, then universal health care clearly has a place in this article." I already agreed to compromise with you on some issues, and have set up a sandbox for you to look at. I have moved the Pope quote out of the disputed section, for instance, as well as a number of other edits aimed at fixing certain related concerns. However, you have not commented or participated in this process, beyond an unyielding reiteration of "You fail to offer a source that states that universal health care is a human right," along with the false claim that the section attempts to build a case for non-compliance. The article merely indicates the presence of a debate. I agree that it could use some improvement, but the destructive direction you wish to take is not the way to go about improving this section. Silly rabbit (talk) 22:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Raggz, I think it is safe to say that the consensus will not be whatever you mandate. Consensus, by definition, must emerge as a result of multiple parties participating. If you continue to take eccentric editorial positions (evidence by the ample disagreement with you on this and other pages), then you will find that, yes, there is a permanent lack of consensus with things as you frame them. If, on the other hand, you are willing to participate in the editorial process in a more normal and cooperative manner, then I think you will find others willing to work with you. However, I find it unacceptable the way that you "claim consensus" for something when either: (a) it was on the outcome of a leading question, (b) the result of a misrepresentation (see straw man), or (c) having nothing obvious to do with the text. Consensus is based on edits, not on nebulous and vague arguments. Please read WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BRD. Go ahead and make edits, propose alternatives, etc. Try to make good-faith efforts at improving the references (rather than deleting the text), and so on. That is how consensus comes about: by editing and by discussing possible edits. Out-arguing everyone else on the talk page is, in fact, counterproductive. Claiming consensus because you have made the final word on some question or another, is counterproductive. Silly rabbit (talk) 21:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

"Raggz, I think it is safe to say that the consensus will not be whatever you mandate. Consensus, by definition, must emerge as a result of multiple parties participating." Agreed.

"If you continue to take eccentric editorial positions (evidence by the ample disagreement with you on this and other pages), then you will find that, yes, there is a permanent lack of consensus with things as you frame them." Please offer one example, so that I know precisely what you mean? What do you mean by "normal"? Raggz (talk) 21:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The parts below I had missed until I went back today:

Normal. I think I have already defined this. Usually editors make an edit. If that edit is reverted, then they go to the talk page and make their case. If they are overruled, or there is a significant opinion that the edit should not be included, then the editor who made the original edit does not have consensus to make the edit. Sometimes, compromises are acceptable. Usually, multiple editors will get on board with various different ideas. Some of them then propose various ways to address the issue (either on the talk page, or through various edits of the article). Usually no one gets there own way entirely, and the process involves a certain degree of flexibility from all parties concerned. If everyone is flexible enough, then consensus emerges naturally from a "soup of ideas." See what Pexise is doing below: trying to solicit comment on some sections. This is the right way to go about doing things. Being pushy, and claiming a false consensus when there is none, is not part of the process I have just described. I'm sorry if that does not agree with your own peculiar interpretation of Wikipedia policy, but it just is the way things are done around here. Silly rabbit (talk) 21:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Not normal. Asking leading questions. Using straw man arguments, and actively misrepresenting what other editors would have. Repeatedly asking other editors to explain Wikipedia policy to you, or by repeated misapplying those policies to compell editors to do so. Questions such as the one which started this whole discussion are not normal: "Do we concur that when a claimed human right within the US does not have a single reliable source that establishes that the claimed right exists, that that this claim is OR until supported?" This has nothing to do with the text, and is a sneaky attempt to trick the answerer into implicitly sanctioning some controversial edit or another. If you say plainly what it is you want to do, and why you think it should be done, then that is how the editing process usually goes. Silly rabbit (talk) 22:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

We are communicating now. I had missed the two paragraphs above, so presumed things incorrectly that I would not have presumed otherwise. May I now withdraw my complaint on the Administrator's Noticeboard because we have now decided to use the Dispute Resolution Process? The complaint was necessary only because we were not willing to engage in that process. I have respect for you, and am confident that we do not need to take Administrator time and energy to resolve our issues. Might we now shift to that forum? Raggz (talk) 23:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:WIKILAWYERING and Allegations of state terrorism committed by the United States

Raggz, since you have once again dropped out of discussions that you had started only to bring up new 'arguments' based once again on selected out of context segments, misinterpretations and misapplications of policy, (from TACIT CONCENSUS to REDFLAG now to FORK, with stops at SYNTH, BOLD and IAR along the way) I feel very much as if you are simply Wikilawyering (definition 4) without any real intent to work for concensus on improving the article, and ask you to stop.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 19:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not aware of any discussions that I have "dropped out of". You requested that I edit at the bottom of the page only, and I am mostly only reading there. I am committed to consensus, but am shifting to perhaps believing that the topic itself may not be salvageable. Raggz (talk) 19:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Please Raggz, quit putting words in other people's mouths. No one, and especially not me, said that you "should only edit only at the bottom of the page." This is not the first time that you have put words in other peoples mouths. (I will provide citations of other such occasions and other editor's requests that you stop that practice, if you ask, knowing that your memory is not the best.) I am begining to get VERY upset with your false statements and pointed misreadings of peoples comments. Such actions are disruptive and not appropriate for WP debates.

We have asked you REPEATEDLY to not dredge up new subjects until the issues in current discussion(s) have reached a concensus. Instead, you have continually brought up 2 and 3 new topics at a time while other discussions are in progress.

We have asked you to refer to each WP policy as a whole and you have continued to take out small sections and misapply them.

We have asked for you to do many things in an effort to find a way that we can reach concensus and have been ignored.

If, in your new quest at misapplying FORK and NPOV, you have decided that the article is unsalvageable, then either 1) in a sandbox start fresh with something that you think MIGHT pass NPOV and be able to garner support of other editors or 2) leave the article alone for a period of time - and, since the article has previously passed a number of Deletion Nominations, wait until a signifigant amount of time has passed since the last nomination and re-re-nominate with specified evidence that the article would meet criteria for deletion. However, I suggest strongly that you do not take option 2 until such time as you have a VERY strong case for the article to go. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 21:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Which of my edits in the article are we discussing? I know nothing about article deletions, nor have I proposed any, ever. I don't even know the criteria. What subjects have I recently "dredged up" that are of concern? Raggz (talk) 21:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry that I did not indicate that I was referring to your actions on the Talk Page. On that page, I joined the discussion when you were mis-applying your interpretation of TACIT CONCENSUS. That was followed by your mis-application of a selected portion of REDFLAG (and your refusal to discuss why your interpretation was wrong). Before we have recieved any outside comments requested to help to clarify REDFLAG, you have moved on to start new discussion sections using mis-application of FORK. These are just the jumping/dredgeing from one Wiki Policy to another that you have engaged in on the Talk page and does not take into account your jumping from issue to issue about the contents of the article itself. Stop it.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 21:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

"Misinterpreting policy or relying on technicalities to justify inappropriate actions" is what you claim? We do have a policy disagreement and I have insisted on discussing it. You allege some "inappropriate action"? Please be more specific. Raggz (talk) 21:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The major point of contention is that YOU have NOT discussed the policies that you bring up. Actually, the issue is that you only bring up SECTIONS of the policy and do not take editor's explanations of how the section that you have taken out of context fits into the policy as a whole. As for specifics see any numbers of the explanations of how your 'requiring mainstream echo' arguement of REDFLAG is incompatible with the policy as a whole. Link to one of the MANY times this was brought to your attention. [10] TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 21:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that WP:CON requires me to participate in a good faith effort to reach consensus. I believe that I have a sincere and sustained effort for this. Check the Nicuragua material of today. Raggz (talk) 02:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

NO you have NOT made a good faith effort to reach concensus. On an article that you know to be contentious, you have just made numerous drastic edits without ANY attempt to gain concensus, for example your Nicuragua section that you reference above. Dont keep stating that you are working for concensus when your actions speak VOLUMES in the contrary. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 14:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Why would I engage in seemingly endless discussion, if not for consensus?

why do you persist in making questionable claims but ignore requests for you to support them?

For example, you keep mentioning there was a verdict from an international legal tribunal, "that rendered a verdict on this topic" of the atomic bombings of Japan. Can you please give me a source for this claim? I do know that the World Court did rule on the legal question of the use of atomic weapons and declared that their use would be unlawful. See http://www.gthunt.com/icjop.htm. Also, there is this international peoples legal tribunal that was held on the atomic bombings that found the US guilty of a war crime in its use: http://www.opiniojuris.org/posts/1155010108.shtml (although this tribunal was without real authority). However the ICC ruling is with full legal authority. The World Court ruled with a formal opinion on the legality of use of nuclear weapons, which to my knowledge was the first time (this is not just UN resolutions such as [11] either. The United Nations GA asked the Court for an advisory legal opinion, and they delivered one, settling many questions of law, after taking two years to look at the question. Thus we have the world's pre-eminent judicial authority that considered the question of criminality vis-a-vis the use of a nuclear weapon, and, in doing so, it came to the conclusion that the use of a nuclear weapon is 'unlawful'. It is also the Court's view that even the threat of the use of a nuclear weapon is illegal--although there were differences concerning the implications of the right of self-defense provided by Article 51 of the U.N. Charter, ten of the fourteen judges hearing the case found the use of threat to use a nuclear weapon to be illegal on the basis of the existing canon of humanitarian law which governs the conduct of armed conflict. The judges based their opinion on more than a century of treatise and conventions that are collectively known as the 'Hague' and 'Geneva' laws." Thus the Court ruled that nuclear weapons are illegal under the Hague and Geneva conventions , agreements which were in existence at the time of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. By this standard they were illegal then, as they are illegal now. Now I mention this not because I think the questions of legality are appropriate for the article you are talking about, because the concept of State Terrorism is a different issue not one constrained by legal questions or by War Crimes. They are related but not the same thing. I'd like to stick to the subject of this article and not stray off topic, unless the question of legality is tied in to State Terrorism by a source talking about it. That is why I proposed that we use the sources we find on the subject to guide us for content on the article. Think about our job as simply finding sources and reporting them in the article (provided they are relevant and encyclopedic), in a cogent manner. Thanks.Giovanni33 (talk) 21:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall the name of the tribunal, but I am certain that it was held. It was the Japanes counterpart to Nurumberg. Like with Nuremburg, it held all actions during WWII by the US and allies to be fully legal with international law. There is a WP article on it. Raggz (talk) 21:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

If I hold an "international peoples legal tribunal" next Thursday, will you agree to include our verdict? Raggz (talk) 21:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

If your hypothetical, next Thursday tribunal featured notable experts and generally passed our guidelines for reliable sources (and dealt with the topic at hand) then sure. But obviously that is not going to happen. You apparently could not answer Giovanni's question about a source. You have at other times alluded to sources but then failed to be specific when pressed and this is yet another example. It's very frustrating. If there is a WP article on this tribunal could you take a bit of time, find it, and then link to it? If this tribunal judged all American actions during WWII to be legal that would serve as a good counterpoint to the state terrorism charge. Take a bit of time to find this source Raggz - it could help to improve the article and I'm fairly certain I would support its inclusion based on the description you have provided.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

This what what I had suspected: you don't remember. I request that before you make exceptional claims yourself, that you follow your own RedFlag standard and support your claims with a valid source. And, if you can't, then please stop repeating the claim elsewhere (as you did on the talk page and on ANI), until you look up what the facts are so you will not only know what you are talking about but be prepared to substantiate it.Giovanni33 (talk) 22:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The article is not out of compliance with NPOV because I could not remember the name of the tribunal today. It is out of compliance because it was never included. This gets to the heart of the NPOV issue, editors who produce text without a shred of NPOV compliance on the theory that other editors may someday edit their contributions to bring them into compliance. It is my opinion that editors who edit to advance their pov and do not attempt NPOV compliance deny WP policies at many levels. Yes Bigtimepeace my "people's tribunal" is only hypothetical, I have too much integrity to attempt such a stunt, I don't believe in Kangaroo Courts. I could however convene a Kangaroo Court filled with notable people selected to render a pov "verdict", and I would oppose covering such a verdict, even if I agreed with it. We may decide to cover such verdicts, but if they are Kangaroo Court we need to say this. WP Weasle words includes "people's tribunal".

Yes, I will look now that you asked, but I had my lunch first. I need to run the dog, but I will look. Raggz (talk) 22:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

"I request that before you make exceptional claims yourself, that you follow your own RedFlag standard and support your claims with a valid source." I do not agree that REDFLAG applies to the discussion page. What source have I added that you challenge? Be honest, if there is none, say so here. Raggz (talk) 22:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

As I pointed out on the talk page, most of your claims, upon examination, turn out to be false or unsubstantiated, this is just one example. The article is not out of compliance because it doesn't include your source because 1. the source deals with questions of legality which is a different topic (war crimes); 2. Because there is no such source that makes those claims (only you have claimed it.) There is no counter part to Nuremburg held by Japan on the question of the legality of the dropping of the atomic bombs, but rather on the question of war crimes committed by Japan (criticized as a victors justice because there was no mention what many regard as war crimes by the dropping of the bombs). The fact is that the question of its legality is still debated, but there is a consensus among historians that has formed, as historian Bruce Cumings has written, accepting Martin Sherwin's statement that it "was gratuitous at best and genocidal at worst." Again, if you want to dispute factual matters, and advocate for their inclusion then you have to first begin by substantiating your claims with sources. Its a basic WP policy on Verifiability. You can't just make things up that you think are true and expect the world of knowledge to revolve around and be limited to what you happen to know or think (but can not offer verification for). To expect others to do this is rather absurd. This is not about POV, its about what valid, legitimate sources say, and to get all notable POVs from reputable sources on the subject/topic matter (which is terrorism by the US). Which part of this is not getting through?Giovanni33 (talk) 23:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Did you find anything yet that supports your claim? If you looked and can not find anything will you concede that you were wrong and retract those claims?Giovanni33 (talk) 01:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in at an odd place. I believe the tribunal Raggz is seeking is the Tokyo tribunal. However, this had nothing to do with prosecuting the US for war crimes, but rather to try Japanese officials. There may have been other tribunals — perhaps some exonerating the US for the atomic bomb — but none that I have heard of. Silly rabbit (talk) 02:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know about the Tokyo Tribunals, and as I said above, while its the Japanese counterpart to the Nuremburg trials, they had nothing to do with rendering any verdict regarding the Atomic bombings, so I knew it could not be this that Raggz is referring to. Maybe some other tribunal? Or does it not exist? If so, will Raggz 1. stop making the claim, and 2. retract it?Giovanni33 (talk) 06:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

What about my questions? You seem to be active again, and I'm sure you finished walking your dog by now...heheGiovanni33 (talk) 02:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I just got back from another dog run. I read about Neuremburg last night, where the US was exempted from any legal WWII in Europe. I recall reading this about Japan, but do not yet have the reference materials I need. This is on my list. Raggz (talk) 02:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Getting back to the dispute...

Alright. User:Silly rabbit has expressed a concern that you may be feeling that some views are underrepresented in this dispute. If this is true, then, please, let me hear it. --Slartibartfast1992 14:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Some people in the US (a majority) believe that universal health care will decrease the quality of health care. Silly rabbit and a minority of Americans believe that health care would improve. If we discuss universal health care at all, both views require representation. It needs to say that the majority of Americans prefer not to have a universal system, but that support for this is growing.

The US has the best health care system in the world, and it is by far the most expensive. The poor is the US get better medical care than the affluent get in any nation. The US spends far more on medical care for the poor than any other nation spends on their citizens. Given these facts, I do not understand why health care is a human rights issue. It is a right and it is provided. Why are we putting details about medical care into a human rights article? Raggz (talk) 19:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't want a new debate to spring up which is why I won't quote anything from Sicko. So, getting back on topic, I still don't know what it is you're proposing. A deletion of the universal healthcare section? Equal representation for both sides of the debate (which is something I've been in agreement with all along)? --Slartibartfast1992 20:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Some people in the US (a majority) believe that universal health care will decrease the quality of health care. Silly rabbit and a minority of Americans believe that health care would improve.

Sorry, I call B.S. on this. —Viriditas | Talk 12:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

If a majority of Americans want to change the health system, as with any democracy, the policy will change. Obviously Americans do not want to change to HillaryCare. There is of course real interest in an improved system, and all informed analysts agree that there are many valid perspectives.

B.S. "In an extensive ABCNEWS/Washington Post poll, Americans by a 2-1 margin, 62-32 percent, prefer a universal health insurance program over the current employer-based system."[12] —Viriditas | Talk 08:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Health care view: Who?

Hi Raggz, Could you please provide a more specific attribution for the view you recently added to the universal health care debate? I believe this book is a survey of US government and American political thought, so I think this view is probably attributed to some very specific camp of thinkers, and they deserve mention here. Also, do you have a direct quote from the book to use, instead of the existing text? Thanks, Silly rabbit (talk) 03:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I will check. I recall not using a specific quote because I am trying to compress the actual language into a summary. It attributes to "camps" only when there is a division. Everyone worries about controlling costs and increasing quality. If there was attribution, I likely would have used this. I like the section now. Raggz (talk) 03:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'd like to see a direct quote. I am having some trouble interpreting just this one sentence: One textbook suggests that because costs are so high and are increasing; that the real problem is that the system is too good, and not everyone can afford increasingly expensive medical care, and so the real challenge might be to find any method that can afford the increasing medical expenditures. How is the increasing cost of medical care an indication that the system is too good, for example? Silly rabbit (talk) 04:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, badly expressed. People want the very best. Most people can afford the best. If the poor get a lower quality level, have they been denied a right (consider that health care for the poor is better and more expensive than is available in Europe). We cannot afford to provide the upper-tier benefits evenly, should we tell the affluent that they cannot pay extra for better care? Maybe it should go. Raggz (talk) 04:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• "Most people feel that the United States provides the best medical care money can buy. But that is precisely the problem: not everyone can afford our increasingly expensive medical care."

• Medicaid is an expression of "political equality", equal protection.

• FDR, Truman "was reelected in 1948 with UHC as one of his stated policy goals." Johnson 1965 medicaid, and medicare

• 32 million households donate to medical care for medical needy care, second only to religion.

• "Americans want the freedom to chose their own doctor, and this is often cited by those who oppose health care reform as one of the major reasons not to make a change."

• "The problems with health care in the United States include rising costs, an increasing number of uninsured Americans, unecessary procedures, endless paperwork, high costs of litigation, and limited access to health care. Generally speaking, the quality of health care in the United States is not a problem..." Raggz (talk) 04:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Milton claims that Clinton had no health care experience and that her staff are quoted that she did not attend many meetings, but spent time on education mostly. Raggz (talk) 04:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

You're quoting a book from 1995 about the health care crisis in 2008? Don't tell me you're also using Mosaic to edit Wikipedia? Currency of sources is almost as important as reliability. If the source isn't current, it's close to worthless. Start with a 2007 study by a private foundation that disproves every one of your assertions. [13] —Viriditas | Talk 14:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Which 1995 source are we discussing? Raggz (talk) 10:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Please stop

I'm not even looking that closely, but you're making mass changes to the article without getting any feedback from anyone. You always say you respect consensus, so why are you not waiting to hear back from other editors on the talk page before making significant changes to an incredibly contentious article? You are not respecting the precedent on this page to discuss controversial edits before making them. I thought you agreed to that in the past.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

There are entirely new sections added, without discussion or consensus, so the claimed agreement for prior discussion never really was operable, was it? I never agreed to refrain from editing this article, (see your talk page a week or so ago). I had paused, discussed, and am now again editing. All of my edits are policy rather than content edits. Revert them if you do not believe that I am correctly implementing policy. Best regards WP:BOLD Raggz (talk) 07:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not you are basing them on policy, all of your edits are changing article content so of course they are content edits. Are you now saying that you refuse to discuss changes before you make them? A simple yes or no will do.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy to stop, if you want. You have lamented an excess of discussion and now a lack of it. What do you want to discuss?

There are entire new sections added without consensus. Please delete these. Raggz (talk) 07:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course there are content edits. For example I modified text to match what Churchill actually said in the cited source. It was a WP:Verify policy violation, and I fixed this (Europe). Is this a problem for you? Raggz (talk) 07:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I want to discuss edits before they are made, and I want to discuss things in a manageable fashion and not in 25 threads at the same time. I have never said otherwise and the positions that we should discuss before making changes and try to limit our conversation to as few threads as possible are quite coherent side by side, despite your attempt to catch me in a contradiction.

Speaking of contradictions, when you one minute say "All of my edits are policy rather than content edits" and then when called out on that misrepresentation say "Of course there are content edits," do you see why folks get a bit frustrated trying to have a conversation with you?

I'll deal with the sections without consensus comment on the article talk page--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The edits were primarily policy edits. Most deleted citations that were irrelevant or did not support the text, many of these were first discussed. I changed Churhills text to what the cite said he said, per WP:Verify. What should I have done? We don't need to discuss misquotes.

If I always edit at the bottom of the page and not in the proper section, people complain. If I do it in the proper sections, people want it at the page bottom. Which is it? I prefer the latter, but will adapt to a unified request. Absent consensus, I have to decide myself.

I have never tried to "catch you in a contradiction", and if you slipped I wouldn't think less of you. This is not a "gottcha game, not from my pov.

When you say "please stop", what do you want to stop? Raggz (talk) 08:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

When I said "please stop" I wanted you to stop making significant changes - of any kind, however justified you think they are - without discussing them first. That's it.

You've misunderstood the whole "edit at the bottom talk page" issue so let me try to clarify what folks have asked you to do. They've asked that you not start so many talk page threads. That's it - try to deal with just 1-3 issues at a time if at all possible. By my count you've established 15 new talk page threads and sub-threads in the last few hours. That's a lot Raggz, and it makes it very hard to keep track of the discussion. Your big problem right now seems to be with the Europe section. You would have been best served by starting a thread or two on that, discussing, and then making changes in the article. Once that issue was dealt with you could move on. I hope this clarifies the issue, which has nothing to do with editing at the bottom of the page or not, but simply with starting too many discussion threads.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Raggz, you have now moved on to a misinterpretation of a section of WP:BOLD to follow your misinterpretations of sections of WP:CON, WP:REDFLAG and other WP policies in your seemingly continuous effort to WP:WIKILAWYER. Stop this contentious editing behavior NOW. Editors have shown ENORMOUS restraint in attempts to engage you in constructive editing on numerous articles. You are reaching the end point where people can continue to extend assumptions of good faith to your contributions when your disruption continues to outwiegh your constructive input by such outlandish proportions. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 15:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems that we have a policy dispute and that it is now past time to engage some form of dispute resolution? We each understand policy very differently. How about dispute resolution? If I am misunderstanding policy and I discover this, then my edits will reflect that. Presently I believe that you misunderstand policy and are demanding that I modify my edits to comply with your incorrect interpretations. We have disputes over policy, nothing more. Resolving our dispute is necessary. How do you suggest that we do this? If this involves reporting my edits, I'm fine with that, and I won't take it personally. If there is another way, fine. Raggz (talk) 18:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Which policy would you like to start with? Per the dispute resolution process #6 Turn to others for help, we can go to one of the notice boards for feedback from other editors on our interpretation of policies. I would suggest starting with your interpretation of REDFLAG and going to Reliable Sources notice board (although, your interpretation would suggest 'fringe theories' notice board would also be appropriate for the article). Does this meet with your approval? TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 20:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Raggz (talk) 00:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought that I had asked a straightforward question but do not understand your reply. So I will re-phrase in a manner that requires only a simple 'Yes' or 'No' response: "Do you agree that taking our interpretation dispute to one of RFC boards is the next step in our dispute resolution process?" When you have answered that question we can move on. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 20:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I have no idea as to the next step and trust your advice. I deferred a direct answer because I don't know what "an RFC board" is. I'd planned to look for these before answering. Raggz (talk) 19:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)