User talk:Sideshow Bob Roberts/Archive

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.-- thunderboltz^(Deepu) 14:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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)

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Minor Edit

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

[edit] ICC edit

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

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Talk:Royal_Rife#Notability

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

[edit] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Vegetarian article

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] Invasion and sentences

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