Hello, VictorD7, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ~~~~, which will automatically produce your name and the date.
If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!
United States of America move debate--Thank you very much!
Thank you for all your efforts above, and your arguments are more than valid; they are Earth-shatteringly compelling.
The Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, and Treaty of Paris are all good examples, but I should point out that the country's Constitution also very clearly establishes the name as "United States of America," at the end of the Preamble. Later Articles also reference simply United States, but when reading the Constitution all the way from cover to cover it is fairly clear that United States is merely a shortened form, with the formal name having been established in the Preamble and therefore being redundant to mention repeatedly (not entirely unlike how a man named William introduces himself as William, and then when you get to know him you can often call him Will; except in the case of the USA that is happening within the text of country's Constitution as you continue reading it).
Furthermore, having studied the Constitution in some detail myself, one could also interpret that "United States of America" is the name of the country while just "United States" is a term to distinguish the country from the "Several States" which are its provinces (this is the origin of why provinces of the USA are called states, because they are referred to as the "Several States" in the Constitution); in other words, the shortened form is just how the Constitution clarifies the differences between national and regional powers.
Either way, United States of America is the Constitutional name, adding 1 more supporting document to those you already mentioned.
...and I can see from your Edit summaries that you are the kind of editor that makes the rest of the world think that Americans are ignorant, arrogant, US-centric pricks. Can you see the difference between a war with global impact, and an internal US matter where the Republicans are at a real extreme by global standards. This is a GLOBAL encyclopaedia, not one just about America. HiLo48 (talk) 09:12, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yawn. You failed to point out anything I said that was "arrogant", "ignorant", or wrong. Your argument is that "pov" in the form of qualifying a policy as "controversial" should be inserted if a controversy is international, but not if the controversy is domestic, even if it's the United States page? Do you realize how moronic and laughably biased that is? What you really mean is that you want to label policies you dislike "controversial" while reverting that label for ones you like. Oh, and you labeled most Americans "nuts". Much of "the world" (which you've preposterously appointed yourself spokesman for) didn't approve of Americans establishing a constitutional republic on a planet of monarchies in the 18th Century. I'm glad we don't always go with the flow. You're a bigoted halfwit, and I've encountered plenty like you before. Nothing new or interesting about you. VictorD7 (talk) 10:41, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your perspective. 95% of the globe's population are not Americans, and this is a global encyclopaedia. Maybe that will help you understand mine. HiLo48 (talk) 22:03, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. I can see there's no point making further effort towards rational conversation. It just ain't gonna happen here. Good luck with the bullying. HiLo48 (talk) 01:55, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You have yet to exhibit any rationality in this exchange. I made specific, valid points you failed to even try to respond to. If you ever get that anti-American chip off your shoulder long enough to have a bout of lucidity, feel free to try and explain why you feel it's ok to insert what you called "pov" into international controversies but not domestic ones over internal policy. VictorD7 (talk) 02:54, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I noticed that the America ---> United States ; and America --move--> America (disambiguation) was closed with no consensus. Yet, I see the discussion continues. Was the "closed" discussion reopened? I am asking here because this might be off topic over at the discussion. Also, I already posted a "support" entry and I don't want add another if this entry is still valid. In addition, I appreciate and agree with the evidence you present. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 02:51, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Steve. An admin closed the discussion to allow a test to be administered, the details of which can be found on the talk page. About halfway through it became clear there was likely manipulation going on, or at least that the results were unreliable, so the test was effectively ended and the discussion reopened for (I guess) another week with the full explanation here in the white box to the right. While the admin did say there was temporarily no consensus, he also indicated that the rationales offered by the move opponents were invalid, and that conclusive USA usage primacy had been demonstrated, so I guess we'll see. There's no need for another vote right now, but you're certainly welcome to participate in the discussion over various rationales as others are. Thanks for your support and interest. VictorD7 (talk) 03:16, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
the difference is
I made my comments then removed them because I immediately regretted them, either because they were off topic or they were insulting or perhaps they were wrong or I just didn't want to get into a fight.
I've noticed you exhibit a pattern of this behavior over time in arguments with various posters--getting a shot in and then self deleting it a little later, with the knowledge that it will still be visible in the history, as though self deletion alone makes it alright. If you're sincere about being hotheaded and later regretting your comments, then I'd suggest you do a better job restraining yourself before posting. Take your time. Always click "preview" first. Sit and think about it a while. Etc.. You also might want to ask yourself why you get upset enough to post stuff like that in the first place. VictorD7 (talk) 21:48, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Morphh. Done and done. I linked to the chart origin and the underlying TPC numbers source. Though I wouldn't be surprised if Lance simply reverted again, in which case I'll take it to the Talk Pages, but in the past he's proved impervious to facts and reason, so it would help if another editor was willing to undo his reverts. VictorD7 (talk) 18:06, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
there were several edits made
to the United States article earlier (an hour or two) ago that I tried to undo, but because of the slowness of my system (about 4 or 5 minutes per "click" on an article the size of the US's) am not sure that I succeesed. Because I trust you and figure you can check it quickly. They were both by unregistered editors, both, I believe, in the Military section. Thanks, Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 23:52, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "United States".
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBotoperator / talk02:11, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Try not to reply to Ellen on "Well-developed but decaying"
I know you have the tendency to, but because she tends to take issues way farther when they should already be resolved, it's probably best to just ignore her on this one and wait for her to let it go rather than going around in circles like always. I think this applies to a lot of other things with her too, sometimes the better route is to just stop replying. I can't make you do anything but just some friendly advice, you can remove this if you want. I just really hate that so much discussion with her ends up going around in circles and I've learned my lesson when it comes to that. Cadiomals (talk) 05:38, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Single-payer health care". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 8 January 2014.
The request for formal mediation concerning Single-payer health care, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
Hey; I see you're active on the United States page and I believe I'm going to start following it. You seem like a pretty reasonable guy so I just wanted to say thanks for your input on the talk page and I'll help in any way that I can. --Jacksoncw (talk) 19:01, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Heads up: Sorry I had to remove your long-winded reply to EllenCT. I should've realized that her post had nothing to do with discussing improvements to the article and removed it before you replied (your reply didn't discuss improving the article either to be fair). It's best to ignore any of her future posts that are like that one, and if it doesn't violate WP:TALK to be removed right away, just allow it to go away and be archived. There is little chance of her actually pushing her POV into the article anymore as long as I'm around. Cadiomals (talk) 01:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with that since you removed the whole section. My post was an appropriate comment on hers, since she presumably was angling to add that to the article in some way and I figured I'd post before it gained traction (possibly among drivebyers who didn't read too closely), but she didn't even bother to explicitly tie it to the article so removing it was appropriate. VictorD7 (talk) 01:48, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I noticed the timing a little later and figured it was a glitch. Edit conflicts have been doing weird things lately. One of my article edits had me in what turned out to be an edit conflict with my own edit a day or two ago, as if it tried to double save. VictorD7 (talk) 07:47, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But to a lot of people they'd count as "net wealth", @Victor falk:. The guy admits he's using his own methodology. It's best to avoid relying on a single study, much less a single person, when purporting to convey precise, detailed information, particularly with an image. VictorD7 (talk) 20:35, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's a pie chart. It's intended to visualise data. It only has to be correct enough, to give an idea of wealth distribution, it doesn't matter if the chart says the middle quintile holds 10.9% if it is 12.2% in reality (and btw econometry is quite hard and it's more or impossible to get exact figures on most things). Unless you can point out it is so wrong or its author so suspect as to be an unreliable source and much worse than other studies, it is good enough for our purposes. Cheers, walkvictor falktalk20:50, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If it doesn't matter then we don't need a chart purporting to have such precision. It's not merely a binary matter of either being a "RS" or not; there's a hierarchy of reliability spelled on on guideline pages, and context matters. It's generally a bad idea to take a single, relatively obscure researcher's analysis and give it the exalted prominence and implied authority of a visual display. Plus "wealth" is generally more difficult to define and study than things like income or taxes. Besides, there's no reason for removing the image you tried to replace. It's longstanding and has been supported by the bulk of editors in multiple discussions in recent months. VictorD7 (talk) 20:59, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
United States again, oligarchy.
Jansenlee has just added back a comment about the U.S. being an oligarchy which is not exactly what the study says. I merely observed in the discussion that we can take from it, that interest groups have influence at the initiation of legislation apart from the majority one-third of the time, which is what the study says.
The study is narrowly focused on decision making surrounding innovative legislation at the enactment of law, without any consideration of how unfolding regulations, administration or subsequent modification of the legislation takes place.
The consensus on Talk is clearly against adding the study at all -- just on technical or procedural grounds, -- never mind adding a misleading synopsis of it -- which is POV and inflammatory. May the calming spirit among us prevail. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:41, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alright TVH, but given how things unfolded and the comments by Mattnad and the rest of us above and elsewhere, hopefully next time you'll pause to reconsider before inviting EllenCT to the article canvass style again. I've generally seen you as a respectable editor and an asset to the article (even when we've disagreed you've conducted yourself well), but that's like inviting a bomb to a dinner party. Her presence is not typically conducive to a "calming", rational, or collaborative environment. VictorD7 (talk) 18:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Victor. Your comments are very helpful. Especially for someone like me who knows little about the subject. FYI, I've posted a notice of the Gini talk page discussion on various Project talk pages. Sometimes such notices generate more discussion, sometimes not. As you have said, using the index can be problematic, especially when comparisons are made. So here is my plan: 1. See what discussion develops on the Gini talk page. 2. Generate a discussion on the infobox country template talk page and advertise it. 3. Depending upon the response, the Gini parameters for the template get modified or the line gets removed. If removed as a parameter, the deprecated figures will not show up. (This process may take a few weeks, but since it is a WP wide issue, we can't rush in and make desirable changes without community input. As for using the Gini index in article texts, I think it will be seen/used often. The actual Gini numbers get published by reliable sources, so they are useful. The context of their use is important. – S. Rich (talk) 16:34, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your efforts on the matter, S. Rich, and I agree with you. Sounds like a plan. The only question I'd have is whether it might have been better to base the discussion on the template talk page from the beginning rather than the Gini talk page, advertising on the latter, but you probably have more experience than I do with that stuff and it may not matter much. VictorD7 (talk) 20:34, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I saw your latest comment. This weekend I'm going to post a thread on the template talk page about removing the Gini from country templates. Thanks again. – S. Rich (talk) 18:20, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
American politics arbitration evidence
Hi. You contributed to a recent RFC about this topic area. This message is to notify you that the arbitration proceedings at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics are underway, and evidence about all disruptive edits to articles within this topic is being accepted at the relevant case page. If you wish to submit evidence for the committee to consider in reaching its decision, please do so now. The evidence phase of the case ends soon, and evidence submitted after the deadline may not be considered. Further advice on submitting evidence, and what evidence the committee will accept, is linked at the top of the evidence page. Please contact me or the other drafting arbitrator if you require more time to submit evidence. Thank you. For the Arbitration Committee, AGK[•]14:14, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A question re your evidence
I am reviewing some of the evidence you presented, in order to make sure it is easy to follow.
In your first link, (number 111 at the moment) [1]
I note that it is not a diff but a link to an older version. It is generally preferred to use a diff, to uniquely identify the edit that is the subject of your comment.
I note that the last diff before that version [2] is by you, but it is addressed to LK, not to EllenCT, so I'm wondering if this is the intended diff. It sort of fits the description, but not exactly; more importantly, your main point is about her response, and I do not see that she responded to this point. Is it possible the link is incorrect?--S Philbrick(Talk)20:46, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate you reading and providing input on my evidence, S. Philbrick. I used a section permalink to provide context for the Arzel post that EllenCT linked to by showing that whole exchange, and hoped my accompanying commentary would be sufficient. The section op dealt with an international comparison made in the article. Ellen posted to dispute sourced claims by others by linking to an article and making an argument that had nothing to do with international comparisons [3]. I replied to correct her [4], she rejected what I said and persisted in her off point focus [5], at which point Arzel posted the comment EllenCT linked to in her evidence [6]. The op (LK) made the same mistake EllenCT did, but that's not pertinent to this case and no, my choosing of the permalink date was almost random. In retrospect maybe I should have at least chosen an earlier permalink. Given your question I'm inclined to replace the link with the diffs listed above to avoid confusion. Would that be acceptable? VictorD7 (talk) 21:32, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would be helpful. I think the arbs will read the material, but you want them thinking abut the content, not wondering whether they have the right link.--S Philbrick(Talk)21:53, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You have far more patience than I do. I don't there is anything that you could say or evidence that you provide that will change her view. Also, thanks for the nice comments. Arzel (talk) 03:36, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I meant it. She may not budge, but hopefully others read the exchange and see her behavior for what it is. VictorD7 (talk) 04:16, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am not comparing your Workshop diffs with the Evidence diffs, but are you adding diffs? If so, I think the Arbcom would like the evidence to be on the Evidence page. As you already have a lot of words and diffs on that page, perhaps you should ask for more words & diffs & extended time. As it is, the Workshop is becoming too long to read. – S. Rich (talk) 05:48, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not for the most part. I did ask permission on the Evidence Talk Page to add a diff from the Workshop page exchange to Evidence where Ellen admits she was accusing me of paid editing, but I'm still waiting to hear back. Actually there are two new comments from that exchange I'd like to add on that score, so, while I've been concerned about the TLDR thing too, at least the discussion has yielded some telling results. VictorD7 (talk) 05:58, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Arbcom workshop
I see a heated discussion here which is largely about content. While discussions about content are welcome on article talk pages, this is an ArbCom case, which specifically excludes pronouncements on content. Please limit your comments to discussions of conduct, which is in the remit of the Committee. ArbCom clerk --S Philbrick(Talk)18:17, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm way ahead of you. I let her suck me into the content tangents at first because they started off as arguably borderline relevant, and because I value free and open discussion, so it's in my nature to answer questions and patiently and calmly correct factual inaccuracies, but I did periodically try to steer it back to the evidence of misconduct, and I have no intention of replying to her anymore there on off topic content subjects. VictorD7 (talk) 18:32, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nice catch, Mattnad. It's incredible to me how frequently she shoots herself in the foot. I agree with you, if honest arbitrators had fully investigated her case she'd be banned. VictorD7 (talk) 02:01, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence phase now closed
Arbitrator AGK closed the evidence phase on 15 May.
Subsequent to that:
VictorD7 modified a link, pursuant to a request by me
EllenCT responded to some late evidence, pursuant to a post on her talk page
VictorD7 responded to some of EllenCT's allegations
Each of the these edits is acceptable, however, subsequent edits (other than a trivial correction to a spelling or fixing a mistaken diff) will be automatically reverted, unless prior permission is obtained. Arbitration Clerk --S Philbrick(Talk)21:52, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
German Tax Graph
This one you might want to let that one go. I'm not loving the selective interpretation of US taxes by some editors. I suspect part of your objection stems from that battle. But if we step away from that, the question should be: does the chart illustrate a progressive tax system?Mattnad (talk) 18:26, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't feel that strongly about it, Mattnad, but I figured it merited getting a "Hey...what are we doing here, guys?" talk page section on the record. A generalized, hypothetical chart illustrating the concept would be one thing, but this purports to show real info from a real country and most readers can't verify it. It is silly to use a German language source on English WP when so many perfectly fine English language ones are available. I figured I'd at least ask for rational objections to using the English language ones, since none have been provided so far. Being apathetic or too quick to concede to bad editing is detrimental to WP quality. If nothing changes now, maybe at least future page visitors will notice and take action. VictorD7 (talk) 19:13, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom PD
IMO getting the ArbCom PD beyond the Arzel matter is just not in the offing. They won't even say they looked at your evidence. That is just as well. You (and others) remain free to bring up disruptive edits in other forums. You might note that I'm checking on the edits I see and I'm making comments. If activity picks up (and continues in a disruptive mode), I think a WP:RFC/U will be the best course of action. – S. Rich (talk) 18:28, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for trying Victor, but this was never about anything else. Your comments clearly illustrate this, but it matters little in the end. Arzel (talk) 02:09, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
BrownHairedGirl...not impressive.
@BrownHairedGirl:, your behavior here was uncalled for and your closing statement was completely wrong. I just pointed out twice that the evidence in question, which you clearly did misinterpret, was present at the original ANI. EllenCT's later confession contradicting your initial conclusion only confirmed what I and several other editors familiar with the disputes had discerned from the beginning. Whether your misinterpretation was understandable at the time or not is a different question, but you undeniably did misinterpret her comments. There would be nothing wrong with admitting that.
I didn't go there to rub your face in your mistake or expecting you to take action, but just wanted to set the record straight, in accordance with your own Talk Page advice encouraging people to tell you when you screw up. An acknowledgement that you had erred would have have been nice, or at least a vague agreement about the importance of admins behaving carefully when making assumptions, not that I was demanding either. But you actually denied you had made an error, prompting the additional (but still civil) responses from me seeking clarification. Your defensiveness and knee jerk entrenchment was unwarranted, and calls into question whether your Talk Page claim about wanting people to tell you when you "screw up" is just empty posturing. It certainly bore no resemblance to your behavior here. It's vital that admins be more open minded and less sensitive than that. VictorD7 (talk) 20:04, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are seeing what you are up against. Progressives despise him and his movie, Cinescore may the best piece of information you are able to include. Arzel (talk) 18:25, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, though it would be nice if we could also retain a sentence explaining why the score is noteworthy. Remember that Arbcom did leave you with the ability to revert, Arzel. VictorD7 (talk) 18:45, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If I make an edit there relating to this, I am quite positive that it will be reported as edit warring on my part regardless of the nature. Arzel (talk) 00:48, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think one revert can be called edit warring, lol, but I've seen stranger things happen here. Either way, I understand your reluctance to use up the revert per week you're allowed. That said, there's certainly nothing preventing you from posting in Talk Page discussions, so feel free to join in. VictorD7 (talk) 00:54, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just did. Not sure how helpful it will be. You have already demonstrated all that is needed on the message board. Numbers are against it though, and as you know even though it is not supposed to work that way it almost always does. Arzel (talk) 01:02, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Yeah, it comes down to numbers and persistence, which is why all the numbers and persistence we can get counts. VictorD7 (talk) 01:22, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't even have to edit the page to be reported. My observation confirming your statements about some of the reviewers of the Movie was enough. Arzel (talk) 03:42, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While I did not suggest anything that relates to you, I did mention you and link to your talk page. See here.
Question
I clarified my question, I was tempted to delete your question to me, but decided to just leave it. Sorry for the confusion. Arzel (talk) 02:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As long as 2 or 3 posters remain bent on deleting all commentary they politically oppose the article will remain in violation of NPOV. The hope is that a couple of more good faith editors come along who are willing to revert their POV edits. Unfortunately, most Wikipedia articles see mostly drive by editing, with a tiny number hanging around for the long term. Actually I had planned on only participating until the movie moved up to #6 in the all time rankings, to make sure that got included in the article, which I've accomplished. Some of the recent edits have been so blatantly POV though that they've temporarily (re)peaked my interest, and I'm considering trying a couple of different options. On the bright side, if the purpose of turning the article into a propaganda page was to dissuade people from watching the film, it failed, as the movie beat Michael Moore's latest film and is the highest grossing political documentary in several years, aside from D'Souza's first film. And at least the page is properly marked as a POV pile of crap, so readers will have that in mind when viewing the article, plus there's extensive discussion of the omitted material and other NPOV violations on the talk page and in the history. VictorD7 (talk) 06:25, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Attribution of corporate taxes paid by income group
I recall some debate on this topic between you and EllenCT. Here's an article from the NYTimes that makes it pretty clear how corporate taxes are distributed by income group the next time it comes up. [7]Mattnad (talk) 13:52, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link. Of course many of Ellen's own sources already said the same thing, but she just ignored it when I pointed it out. That page might be clearer than sifting through a dense academic paper though.VictorD7 (talk) 19:42, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I found a new resource for United States square mile area from the U.S. Census, “State and other areas” which uses the MAF/TIGER database, shared by the USGS and Homeland Security. The first box on the first line reports 3,805,927 sq.mi. for the 50 states, DC, Puerto Rico, and "Island Areas”. I support the use of the chart total report based on sources to include islands which are a part of the United States "in a geographical sense."
The U.S. is a federal republic but it considers itself as a “sole person” in the international community. The U.S. territories should be reported as included in the nation just as in the France article. The French legislature allows territorial Deputies in its national legislature, the US. allows territorial Delegates, the British does not. The “unincorporated” status of the territories is for an internal tax regime, and is irrelevant to reporting the total area of the United States of America.
Three who opposed including islander U.S. citizens in the United States introduction in the Dispute Resolution of March of 2013 now propose to parse the sub-charts of the source to report only the area of the states and DC, without sources to exclude the territories. I am now joined by RightCowLeftCoast, and Alanscottwalker, but TFD asserts the minority in the Dispute Resolution was a “consensus” to exclude U.S. citizen islanders, when the majority was to include them. I regret there appears a wall of text in three subsections, but I am grateful for any contributions you may choose to make at Talk:United States#Area in square miles.
Perhaps a footnote such as recommended by Alanscottwalker could be in order to accommodate the excluders, to the effect that the states and DC alone are reported as having an area of 3,796,742 sq.mi., but leave the 3.80 million sq.mi. in the article mainspace intro and 3,805,927 sq.mi. in the info box. Would you see if that footnote proposal could calm the waters towards a consensus here for geographic area? Or would you prefer the 3,796,742 sq.mi. in the info box and a footnote for total area of 3,805,927 sq.mi. to include he 50 states, DC, Puerto Rico, and "Island Areas”? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:08, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've stayed out of this debate so far and haven't followed it too closely as my schedule has limited my time on Wikipedia, but I'll look at it when I get enough free time, maybe within a few days or so. The issue has raged for a long time so there's a good chance it will still be under discussion then.VictorD7 (talk) 00:02, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid you may be right, this may go on for a while more, Golbez seems to be plunking for no footnote at all, arguing 50 states and DC only.
I proposed a “Poll for two alternatives” for the info box,
A. Report area including territories, footnote 50 states and DC area.
B. Report 50 states and DC area, footnote area including territories.
Regarding your interaction with Gamaliel, may I ask you to practice civility? I've already talked to the other editor, but if he is not willing to cut it out, I'm asking you now. Nothing is going to be accomplished with the shared animosity, and even if you do not want to accomplish anything with him, it's unnecessary to continue trading barbs.
In regard to the article, I think it would help to expand the article in other ways, like to detail the film's production and marketing. For example, I saw an article about the filmmakers' choice of music, as well as marketing targeting church groups. This would help provide uncontroversial content so the reviews and political commentary can be part of a whole (rather than looking like a section of overly-extreme focus). Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me)18:47, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit summary states "A consensus is needed for removing it, not keeping it, and one does not exist."
This is incorrect. The burden is on the editor who inserts the content. Please review policy or consult others who can explain it further to you. SPECIFICOtalk04:23, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're wrong. Removing longstanding material requires a consensus. You can boldly make a unilateral change, but if it's reverted you should leave the material in and try to gain consensus for its removal on the talk page. Currently not only is there no consensus for removal, but a decisive majority opposes removal. In the absence of a consensus for removal, much less in the presence of a consensus against removal, the status quo reigns. VictorD7 (talk) 04:28, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I explained policy to you. If you disagree, then post something more substantial than flippant statements that barely qualify as assertions. VictorD7 (talk) 07:36, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Have one on me!!
Atsme☯Consult has bought you a pint! Sharing a pint is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a pint, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Cheers!
I completely understand. RIP Breitbart
Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:WikiPint}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Message received at 23:27, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "America: Imagine the World Without Her". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 24 January 2015.
Not necessarily, but it could have certainly been read that way, Erik, especially since you have a separate "conservative commentators" sentence but no "liberal commentators" sentence (just the unqualified "political commentators" doing the critique), and most of the critique you added on those topics are liberals criticizing the film (in the negative sense). I'm commenting further on this on the article talk page. VictorD7 (talk) 21:25, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Request for mediation rejected
The request for formal mediation concerning America: Imagine the World Without Her, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
I'll assume restarting the same discussion at WP:MRV was a good-faith mistake rather than a malicious attempt to forum shop, but it was inappropriate per the instructions on that page and I have closed the discussion accordingly. It is not for contesting bold page moves with which one disagrees but for review of RM discussion closures, much like WP:DRV. The page tells you to resolve contested bold page moves by discussing the concern with the mover, and if necessary, starting a formal WP:RM. You need to act accordingly within the appropriate dispute resolution outlets, and that would likely be either converting the current discussion into a formal requested move, or simply leaving it in its current format as a talk page discussion. Restarting the discussion in a different forum is a forgivable mistake but repeated instances of apparent forum shopping are serious violations of the Consensus Policy and may result in a block. Regards, Swarm♠05:34, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't malicious and I'm not sure it was a mistake, Swarm. The "bold move" occurred simultaneously with the brief RM discussion by an editor who went on to participate in that discussion and wasn't immediately disputed because that discussion was closed soon after. Given the presence of an already closed RM a move review seemed more appropriate as the next step than a new RM, especially since the legitimacy of the RM close is what's being disputed. That the closer himself agrees with me and has both criticized the premature move and said he thinks his own good faith close should be overturned is undeniably significant. At the very least you or an uninvolved admin (since you had already involved yourself in this dispute, complete with a premature assessment of future consensus) should have granted the closer's wish and overturned the RM close, as its presence created the false impression of a consensus. As for the move itself, are you saying that if an editor "boldly" moves a page then that immediately becomes the status quo, and a new consensus through RM is required to restore it to the previous long standing consensus? I suppose the alternative is boldly reverting, but that might have led to edit warring by multiple editors, and I was trying to avoid that. As for alleged forum shopping, I might have led off with the move review if I had been familiar with the procedure, but it came to my attention through research a little later. That said, the talk page section (which was about the move rather than the close per se) was informal, and if it's acceptable to supersede that with a formal RM (as both you and the move editor have suggested) then I don't see why it can't be superseded by a formal move review of the close. VictorD7 (talk) 06:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Move review was not the appropriate forum to bring this, period, and if you read the instructions, you would have realized that. The problem was only aggravated by the fact that the same discussion was going on on the article talk page. Move review was not appropriate because the move was done independently of the RM and it's obviously that action that you're contesting. The RM close was obviously an early procedural close that happened after the fact, and the closer has clearly acknowledged this on the talk page. The move may have been premature and out of process but it can hardly be considered unreasonable or disruptive given the context and the ensuing support for the action. The correct procedure from that point was, per WP:MRV, to propose moving it back, which, despite not starting a "formal" RM, was exactly what you did and that was correct. Now it's a matter of forming consensus on the talk page. Period. Straightforward discussion in which opinions are exchanged. That's all that's required. The consensus thus far has been pretty straightforward, and anyone with eyes can see that. Your assertion that "there hasn't been a real discussion yet" is an outright lie and you're saying it in a real discussion. Most of the feedback has been against your proposal and as a result you're trying to discredit the validity of the discussion you yourself started. Furthermore, I am not involved in the dispute itself. Any actions or statements have been made strictly as an uninvolved administrator addressing the situation objectively. I am trying to make sure policies and procedures are followed so as to prevent disruption to the project, not to exact any particular outcome. Should I choose to take a position in the dispute, I will no longer be acting as an uninvolved administrator as I am now. Consensus can change and discussions are given plenty of time before being considered "final", but if it doesn't change, you need to accept it without causing disruption. Seriously. I understand the discussion is trending in a discussion you don't like but attempts to misrepresent consensus, obstruct the consensus building process, forum shop, or delegitimize those who disagree will be taken seriously (i.e. you will be blocked). And I'm giving you this warning based on behavior I'm already starting to see, not on some presumption of bad faith. Focus on content, participate in discussion, and leave the honest assessment of consensus to uninvolved editors. Regards, Swarm♠07:33, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see, Swarm, you accuse me of lying, in violation of WP:AGF. Your accusation is also false. I explained what I meant by "real discussion", namely one rooted in policy and focused on source evidence, evaluating whether or not the page should be moved from McKinley to Denali (with a non consensus resulting in it remaining at the last consensus version). Apart from seeking a move in that direction the original RM had none of that. While the qualifier "real" may be debatable, that the RM closer agrees with me and the page mover has repeatedly acknowledged it happened the wrong way hardly leaves me on shaky ground. It's true that my section ops first laying out relevant policy and then requesting a reset to the last consensus version so a real discussion could take place contained vital material, but alone they don't make a discussion, and, as the RM closer himself noted, most of the respondents to my reset section totally ignored policy and evidence, especially early on. So no, that's not the real discussion I had in mind. It also was not a permanent move discussion. I repeatedly said I don't really favor one name over the other. The preliminary evidence I posted was just to show that the issue wasn't clear cut in favor of Denali being the common name, and to point editors toward the type of discussion that should take place. So you're wrong, a proposal of a permanent (RM style) move back to McKinley was not "exactly what (I) did". I made it clear from the beginning that would be an entirely separate discussion (and in the other direction), even stating in the op that people could support a reset and still argue for a move to Denali later. Your comments indicate that much of this went over your head (assuming good faith).
As for the move review, I did read the instructions. I didn't (and still haven't) noticed a clear explanation as to what to do when a closed RM endorsing the move is involved. That complicated matters. Logically, undoing that closure appears to be an important step in whatever happens. After all, the closed RM itself says at the bottom, "Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review", complete with a link. And the WP:RM page's intro informs editors that, "The Move review process can be used to contest a move.", complete with a link to the move review page. It also explicitly says not to use the RM page when "Contesting a move request close – use the Wikipedia:Move review process." Since I wanted to contest the RM close, I correctly followed directions in good faith. False accusations of "forum shopping" are frivolous, unwarranted, and only serve to poison discourse. Your feeling that the move was merely a bold one with no connection to the RM is novel, but the moving editor himself brought up the closed RM discussion when I asked him about the motivations behind his move, which was the first time I had paid attention to it. At that point, at least, he had tied himself to it. Even with your interpretation that the move was entirely separate from the discussion, at the very least you could have overturned the RM close while saying that reverting the move was beyond the purview of that process, especially since the closer himself posted in the review and echoed my requests by agreeing with everything I said, as opposed to abruptly closing the review in one sided fashion and posting threats on my talk page. So no, not "period".
You became involved when you posted to take a side in the ongoing reset discussion in the above section (I'd argue frivolously, since you were ostensibly just there to endorse the close of the tangential section). And actually the discussion did trend in a direction I made clear I wanted from the beginning, so your snark there is wrongly founded too. As time went on reset supporters went from 0 to several, and certainly had the stronger argument weight on their side, though going by sheer vote count even if it had ended 50/50 or 60/40 in favor that would be no consensus and no reset. From the beginning a localized reset discussion was contingent on move supporters agreeing to it, which only one for sure did. However, the section did finally result in some useful things, namely some other editors finally conducting a policy based source discussion of the type that should have occurred before the move, and even numerous move supporters conceding that they had made some mistakes, including the mover himself again today.
I became involved when I saw a blatantly unfair move process get rapidly rammed through by a few editors based on an erroneous assumption about naming policy. My concern wasn't the ultimate title result but that proper procedure be followed, in spirit as well as letter (this wasn't a meaningless technicality), and that the move as conducted not stand without challenge. I had much better things to spend my time on the past couple of days. But because I and some others intervened, involved editors are now more informed and even move supporters admit it didn't happen the right way, which will hopefully lead to better conduct in the future. For holding Wikipedia accountable to its own professed principles, you're welcome. VictorD7 (talk) 20:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The fact of the matter is that high quality book sources focusing on the mountain have consistently preferred "Denali" to "McKinley" for decades. I have been unable to find a single book about the mountain published in the 21st century that uses "McKinley" in the title. Are you aware of any? The majority of serious book sources published in the last 40 years use "Denali" in their titles. Am I incorrect? Cullen328Let's discuss it07:40, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Another editor has already replied to you with examples of 21st Century books using "McKinley", but this isn't the proper place for this discussion. VictorD7 (talk) 18:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know you Victor, but bravo for everything you said in this thread! You're right on the money. However, it's no surprise that it fell on deaf ears. You summed up the situation perfectly when you said, "I saw a blatantly unfair move process get rapidly rammed through by a few editors based on an erroneous assumption about naming policy. My concern wasn't the ultimate title result but that proper procedure be followed". That is precisely what I also attempted to get across on my talk page to the same administrator. Sadly, rules and common sense were thrown right out the window on this one. And anyone who tried to address it and correct the mistakes was simply disregarded and shut down. In any case, thanks for fighting for a fair process based on all the relevant policies and guidelines. Well done. Lootbrewed (talk) 04:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
– S. Rich (talk) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!
Well done. I wish I could spend some more time looking at your missives IOT give direct support, but other issues in my life have torn me away from editing.
Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{WikiScotch}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Message received at 01:03, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Not banned as far as I know, and apparently no action was taken in that Arbcom case she started (sort of), which has since been archived. My guess is it's a temporary sabbatical. VictorD7 (talk) 03:11, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's really not, LK. If you had checked out the talk page section that's still up you'd have seen that I quoted pro choice activists using the phrase "on demand", as well as international academic works, and other Wikipedia articles (it's standard practice). It's important because simply saying "legalized abortion" is too broad. Even most pro lifers supports legal abortion in some cases, especially when the life of the woman is in danger. Certainly "women's rights" or "reproductive rights" are even worse, especially if tied to or used as a euphemism for "abortion", as the new edit I just reverted tried to do. Conservatives, like virtually all Americans support both women's and reproductive rights too. The difference is over abortion, and even there over the degree to which it should be restricted, not whether it should be legal at all. "Abortion on demand" is a common legal/academic term and is what modern US liberals support and conservatives oppose. The US is widely described as an "abortion on demand" nation. It clarifies, not demeans.
But calling abortion "women's" or "reproductive" "rights" (which, by implication, those mean conservatives must oppose, right?) is a true example of the partisan skew you hypothesize about. VictorD7 (talk) 02:56, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks at United States
Thanks for your efforts to clearly represent modern party distinctions as center-right and center-left without stumbling into arcane political science academic terms or nineteenth century Marxian dialectic. The U.S. Republican Party and Democratic Party are not otherwise equivalently "liberal". It seems a decent interval has passed to allow for the introduction of the terms in the article mainspace, considering you have substantiated the current modern usage for the general reader by reliable sources, and TFD has offered only an aggregate of unnamed, unread and unsourced "hundreds of thousands" in reply. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:53, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, SPECIFICO. I'll defer to your expertise on the ins and outs of being topic banned, but as for alleged "grave dancing", cut a guy some slack. This was a long time in coming. It's not personal, though she repeatedly tried to make it so. I mean it when I say Wikipedia is now significantly improved. That's my concern. Nice to know you're paying such close attention to my talk page, btw, despite us not interacting in months. VictorD7 (talk) 00:26, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, VictorD7. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello, VictorD7. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello, VictorD7. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Discretionary sanctions alert for articles and content relating to post-1932 American politics and articles and content relating to abortion
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
