User talk:Sideshow Bob Roberts/Archive

Welcome

Hello, Sideshow Bob Roberts/Archive, and welcome to Wikipedia! I am Deepu Joseph (a.k.a. thunderboltz). Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk or ask me on my talk page.
Sign your posts on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~).
Provide an Edit summary
Take a look at Consensus of standards. It is always wise to read the talk page of an existing article before making major changes on it. Even then, I typically ask if anyone minds that I make a change. Very often they do! ;-)
Create a User page

Again, welcome! And if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to ask - Just click here to leave me a message; or add {{helpme}} to this page.-- thund e rboltz ^(Deepu) 14:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Treehouse of Horror XVII / Iraq War

You may want to see Talk:Treehouse_of_Horror_XVII#Appearance_in_News. An IP user removed the cultural references section, and said on the talk page that it was politically directed at the president and doesn't belong on wikipedia. I re-added the section. If you agree the section belongs, it would be cool if you could comment to that effect on the talk page, so as to establish a consensus that it does belong. Thank you. AubreyEllenShomo 18:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to J. Bradford DeLong

I reverted your edits to the J. Bradford DeLong article, since your edit message claimed that the information was unsourced, while it did cite two sources. If you believe that the sources are unacceptable, please explain on the article's talk page or your edit summary. -- intgr 22:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't understand

Could you explain your edit[1] and how the adoption of that Act is not relevant to the ICC? Clearly it is in response to it. Unless you can sufficiently support your assertion it is not relevant I think we should not exclude mentioning it.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 17:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

[Moved from User:Sideshow Bob Roberts:]

Hello, I am willing to work with you to resolve editorial conflicts, and of course I accept all appropriate policies. I am a very new user, and I have already visited the "sandbox" and read the policies. When you have suggestions, please (1) be specific enough that I know which sentence or paragraph of policy you are discussing and (2) use the Talk Page, rather than my personal page (unless the discussion is personal rather than about articles.

I understand that you feel that I am "wasting" your time. You want me to go play in my sandbox. I sympathise, I may seem slow, but I'm doing the best I can.

The Wikipedia Policy permits me to state what the ICC Prosecutor says in his Official Letter? The article already cites this document, how do you challenge my use of it but not others? I edited in a factual and useful summary of his statement, but you challenged this properly referenced and accurate statement. Why did you do this? Do you agree that since you challenged my summary, you now have the burden of backing up your challenge with an approriate source? Do we agree that this is Policy?

Do you agree that one may conclude from the Prosecutor's Letter that "gravity" means that 10-20 war crimes deaths are defined by the ICC to be below the future prosecutorial threshold? He did NOT state that there were such IN THIS CASE, but specifically states that every single such case known to him is being handled under National Authority? The point is to declare what clearly fails below a prosecutorial "gravity" threshold for the future? Raggz 01:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Raggz,

First of all, I apologise if my warning on your talk page sounded patronising. I certainly did not mean to suggest that you go “play in your sandbox”; I was using a standard warning message which is designed to be used when a editor continues to add content without citing reliable sources.

The reason I posted messages on your talk page was to discuss a pattern of policy violations which were spread over a number of articles. I used specific examples from various articles to illustrate what I was saying. If you wish to discuss those examples in detail, the discussion page of the relevant article is the appropriate place. However, you continue to ignore the warnings I posted on your talk page, and you continue to add controversial material to Wikipedia without accurately citing sources.

With respect to your specific question about the ICC Prosecutor's letter, my only concern is that you claimed that all war crimes committed during the invasion of Iraq “were properly investigated and prosecuted by national governments” but the Prosecutor's letter does not say this. You may not put words in the Prosecutor's mouth or draw your own conclusions from his letter; you may only report what he actually said.

My point, which I have made many times and you continue to ignore, is that you violate Wikipedia's policies when you make claims that are not directly attributable to a reliable source. Sideshow Bob Roberts 14:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Side Show Bob Roberts: I agree that you have repeatedly advised me to do things I did not do. Sometimes I was wrong, and I admitted to this. Mostly I disagreed, and continued. Sometimes I was wrong to continue, so I admitted to this.

I do not ignore your comments. Sometimes we just disagree. I spent a lot of time initially trying to engage you. You said that I was "wasting" your time, that you were following me around (which might - or might not be creepy). All of this seems now to be irrelevant, water under the bridge. You know considerably more about international law than I do, and you know your way about in the Wiki-woods. You write well. Your initial strategy seemed to be offering unhelpful "go-away" messages, but this has passed. Your adversarial style marks you as a lawyer, the inevitable product of any fine legal education and practice. I'm not the type to sit and puzzle or worry over the past. Let's just make the articles better? I'm not the sort to mind a bump or two, and I'm fine with where we now are. Raggz 08:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Massive Deletions International Criminal Court

I'm concerned that you have deleted important parts of the article and that you do not understand the policy that you cited in support. The result is a loss of NPOV. You cannot just delete properly sourced material, and the fact that you disagree with the authors of these sources is insufficient. For one example: You deleted the quote from the President of the ICC who knows more about the ICC challenges than you or I do. I will of course revert, unless you believe that we need to discuss anything? Do you believe this? How should we resolve our differences? Raggz 00:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Minor Edit

Eh? siarach 08:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

ICC edit

See my query at Talk:International Criminal Court#Deletion? –SESmith 03:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Your GA nomination of International Criminal Court

The article International Criminal Court you nominated as a good article has passed , see Talk:International Criminal Court for eventual comments about the article. Well done! Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 19:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to help. You have done some great work on the article. It was refreshing to read something so well written. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 21:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for noticing. It appears that the use and the aging of {{current}} templates has nobody's attention. -- Yellowdesk 03:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Talk:Royal_Rife#Notability

I added a reply to your comments. Please have a look. Thanks. Oldspammer 21:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]

NPOV

I find Raggz's editorialising intolerable. Is there not something that can be done about it? A third admin/editor review his or her editing? smb 12:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've come across this editor too, and ended up in various disputes with them back in May, based on their constant insertion of their own half-baked ideas into various articles. I actually consider what Raggz does to be worse than vandalism - blanking a page and replacing it with a rude word is at least obvious and easily remedied; whereas Raggz seems to engage in the far more insidious activity of wrecking articles piece-by-piece, by deleting anything they disagree with and randomly claiming it was all "OR" or POV", and then chucking in their own bizarre and usually inaccurate analysis of legal verdicts or international events, complete with inept English and spelling errors. They then claim it's up to other editors to help them perfect and edit the nonsense they've inserted, rather than accepting that it should simply never have gone in in the first place. I thought they'd stopped a while ago, but they appear to be back. I'd happily weigh in to help with anything that can be done about it, since they seem impervious to rational debate. --Nickhh 12:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your observations match my own. It's frustrating because I know of no single action we can take. Perhaps our host can advise when he returns. I'm presently watching the situation and jotting down diffs should this editor be called to account in the near future. smb 13:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi folks,

I intend to start a Request for Comment about Raggz's behaviour. I have no doubt that he'll ignore the outcome but I don't know what else to do at this point.

In order to proceed, the RfC must be certified by one other user who has tried but failed to resolve the problem — maybe one of you would be willing to provide evidence that you've done this.

Also, I'd be grateful if you'd read this draft RfC and let me know what you think. In particular, have I said anything inaccurate, inappropriate or unfair? Have I made any procedural errors?

Cheers, Sideshow Bob Roberts 14:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good work. You might want to squeeze Rationale for the Iraq War in there somewhere (examine the recent history). Raggz said this edit [2] ...complies with & enhances a NPOV, but upon inspection, "Critics however ignore the clear language of UN resolution 678 in authorizing military force" is a clear POV statement. Then, having promoted one point of view over others, Raggz cut down the lead to just 35 words! [3] It's bizarre behaviour. smb 15:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Much as I hate ganging up on people, unfortunately this needs to be done. I'll have a look at how I might be able to help when I have a bit more time - it broadly all looks very fair to me so far. The only problem I can see (and I'm not overly familiar with wiki-protocol for this sort of thing) is that the RfC seems to require the seconding editor to have tried to resolve the SAME dispute - I'm not clear whether this means the exact same dispute (ie over the same content), or a simply a related one about the same sort of general behaviour. --Nickhh 20:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the comment above about not wanting to gang up on people, but at the same time, these edits are just totally inappropriate. The talk page and history for Capital punishment are another example that you might want to consider adding. It worked out fine, but only after a number of reversions, and having to point out that Raggz was entirely incorrect (something he was not quick to accept). I have also attempted to correct some of his edits to United States and the International Criminal Court, and have been equally frustrated in that sense. As a result, although I wish it were not the case, a RFC seems the only avenue left. JCO312 02:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

You are incorrect, as I added all of the SOURCED information to the page, and if you have actually looked at the articles, you will see that there is little sourced stuff. I am unaware of any policy that says that all of the information in an article MUST be merged otherwise you have to go to afd. Adding the top 10 lists is cruft, all of the analysis and trivia was unsourced as well, so by Wikipedia policy, it was expendable. I'm not exactly sure what you would count as a full merge. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 13:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did add some stuff, but like I said, I added all of the sourced content. There just wasn't a lot of it. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, I didn't expect some kind of Spanish Inquisition... There was nothing of note that had sources, plus there was already some info on the lists in the section, so I didn't feel that it was necessary to add anything else. It's a single article from a magazine that has published thousands and thousands of articles, so I didn't think it needed more than a few sentences. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find it difficult to believe that someone who's been here as long as you have could actually think it's acceptable to make comments that can be taken as personal attacks. I don't think I was out of line at all in merging the page. I added merge tags, and left them for a week. Nobody opposed, and there was support for my idea, so I merged the pages. I made sure there was mention of the articles, (the only sourced statement in either of the two articles was already mentioned there) and that there were external links to the pages. So please stop with these accusations and acting like I was out of line, because I really wasn't. Also, I wasn't lying because I never once claimed I merged everything. I merged the SOURCED content, and as there was no sourced content to merge, then I was finished before I started. You have some reading to do. Please read WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:RS, WP:A, WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NPOV and WP:CRUFT. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should read them, then you would get my point. They all back up my claim that unsourced analysis does not belong in articles, hence why they a lot of the content wasn't merged. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course unsourced analysis doesn't belong in articles, but you keep banging on about these policies to distract from the fact that you deleted two articles without following the deletion process and then repeatedly lied about your actions. Sideshow Bob Roberts 14:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iraq War

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Iraq War, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Daniel 10:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Iraq War.

For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 11:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vegetarian article

See discussion pageof the article.---- Ksteveh (talk) 20:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Iraq War intelligence dispute

I'm inviting editors to make contributions (large or small) to the proposed Iraq War intelligence dispute page. There is no urgency, but please do try and contribute something in any spare time you may find. smb (talk) 00:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Invasion and sentences

Oops. Heh. Nice. PRRfan 16:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raggz

This situation is completely out of control and needs to stop. Has a user RfC been opened on Raggz yet? —Viriditas | Talk 00:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For several months, he's been adding false information to articles and systematically deleting anything critical of the United States government — often for patently false reasons. He's received countless warnings, and several editors have gone to great lengths to explain how he's been violating Wikipedia's core policies. He either ignores the warnings or apologises and carries on exactly as before.

I would like to document this in detail with diffs on the incident page. —Viriditas | Talk 10:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please help organize the incident page so I can open an RfC. —Viriditas | Talk 12:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Restoring removed comments from other users' talk pages

Hi Bob, I actually just found that essay after I reverted it last. I wasn't aware about that. I just saw that the editor was negatively contributing and I wanted others to be aware that it's not his/her first time when they go to warn him. But I understand now why it should not be done. Thanks for your concern. --Dan Leveille^TALK 15:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ICC article tantrum

Warning

Hi Bob, Why do you put things like "Raggz, this is absolute nonsense. The Rome Statute is a treaty between states. The law of treaties applies. You will not find a single person who understands international law who thinks otherwise. As usual, you're just making this shit up as you go along. Sideshow Bob Roberts (talk) 16:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC" into the discussion page? You may be correct, you may not be, but you will not persuade me with tantrums. Why not just offer a reliable source for support? THAT is the WP Way. If you are correct, there will be billions of reliable sources. All the best Raggz (talk) 03:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Raggz, your claim that I threw a tantrum is as dishonest and ridiculous as your claim that the Rome Statute is not a treaty between states. I've replied on the appropriate discussion page.[4] Sideshow Bob Roberts (talk) 23:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for describing your outbursts as tantrums. That was not as diplomatic as I might have been.

I have also notified the administrators about these outbursts at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Sideshow_Bob_Roberts Raggz (talk) 02:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned that you remain hostile, your comments today at the Administrators Board calling me a pathological liar are uncalled for and I ask for your apology. Consider also what you said earlier this week: "::::Raggz, this entire section is original research you've added to the article in a blatant attempt to paint the court in a negative light. You've made no effort to present the Court's achievements to date, and we both know you have no intention of ever adding anything positive about the ICC to this section (or to any Wikipedia article)...:Sideshow Bob Roberts (talk) 00:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)"[reply]

If we are going to work together effectively we need to get past these personal issues. Might you consider mediation? Raggz (talk) 05:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're damn right that I'm hostile. It's very difficult not to be when you keep telling lies about me. Every time I point out that you're lying, you either ignore me or change the subject. I've asked you never to make another negative claim about me without providing a diff, but you lack the basic decency to do this.

Meditation would be a complete waste of time: we're never going to work together effectively until you stop lying. Sideshow Bob Roberts (talk) 05:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do I make a diff? I've followed the directions twice, but cannot find the radio button described. Actually I told the administrators when you opened that dialog about me that I had been especially frustrating. I'm sure you read that. Why would I even want to lie about you? What purpose would that serve? OK, what lie is it that you want me to stop telling. I have no idea. Raggz (talk) 07:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the diff info. I will be reviewing this later today.

As for ICC effectiveness, I hold a strong opinion that the ICC is presently precluding a major NATO invasion of Kosovo that would already have occured without the ICC. I'm not sure if this is good or bad, but am certain that (1) US rotary-wing aircraft would be essential to such an invasion, (2) that the US will not commit combat forces into any scenario that would render them to ICC jurisdiction, (Is Serbia an ICC member?) (3) NATO cannot invade Kosovo without US rotary-winged aircraft and also needs to ensure that NATO actions do not violate international law. I am convinced that the prior invasion involved war crimes on the part of NATO and the US, and would not have occured on a massive offensive scale had there then been an ICC.

If you review the limited UN aurthority of 1242 (1244?) that is without Chapter VII, it basically only permits protection of refugees. Even so, Clinton ordered a massive US bombing campaign that had no clear connection to the limited UN mandate. Presuming that Serbia is an ICC member, Clinton could have been indicted for exceeding the UN mandate in the ICC (had there been one). I assure you that President Bush and his successors will go to great lengths to avoid ICC jurisdiction that they might not go to in regard to UNSC jurisdiction. So, in regard to deterring war crimes and crimes against humanity, I argue that the ICC is already has a major impact, at least in areas where the ICC has jurisdiction.

Let's discuss my pov: which you misunderstand. This might help our collaberation? I'm really not anti-ICC (nor is the US). I support US sovereignty which only means that I oppose ICC jurisdiction for the US, particularly to the degree it requires that Americans forefeit our human rights without going through a constitutional amendment to do so. I'm fine with the ICC in Darfur, and if the US opposed this, they would not be there. There should be no court (or government) that is imposed upon a free people without their consent, and the word for such an imposition is tyranny. If the ICC is to have US jurisdiction, it need be by the consent of the free people to decide.

I am strongly for human rights and the protection of them, (which is why I oppose ICC jurisdiction for the US). I believe that it is a good thing that the US now has the ICC excuse within NATO to decline the next NATO invasion of Kosovo. I support the UN as a practical and necessary step in the evolution of international law, and to the degree that the UN and ICC collaberate, this is a good thing. I do not view the ICC as a desirable means to circumvent the UNSC. Even though the UNSC has difficulty reaching any consensus, the fact that tyranny enhances the consensus process does not in my view make tyranny desirable. Like almost all Americans, I'm fine with the ICC spreading worldwide with the consent of those who adopt it. I actually favor this, so, am I really anti-ICC? I say, NO, I am pro-ICC. Raggz (talk) 22:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui

On 13 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 17:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]