User talk:VictorD7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


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!

meco (talk) 06:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


June 2012[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at United States. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please try and find a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you.

SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Reply to SarekOfVulcan: Nope, I simply reverted a transparently unjustified revert and made a point. I was the one who made the contribution. I hope you sent a message to the other guy. VictorD7 (talk) 20:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


if you put something, anything, on your user page, then your name will appear as a blue link rather than as a red link. This gives you about 17% more credibility as an editor, which you might need if you start editing in controversial articles. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 21:30, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

and you just did (opinion) improve it. Carptrash (talk) 23:05, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget to sign your messages with four (4) of these ~ Carptrash (talk) 23:15, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

life is good. Carptrash (talk) 23:16, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

United States of America move debate--Thank you very much![edit]

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.

Once again, thank you for the compelling arguments for the move that you posted earlier! The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 06:27, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you![edit]

Cheeseburger.png For your valiant effort at the United States -> United States of America move debate. The former is like nails on a chalkboard to my ears in its context as an article's title. Zujua (talk) 04:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Tasty and appropriately American. Thanks! VictorD7 (talk) 05:09, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

"Controversial" at US article[edit]

...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)

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)
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)
An ever greater percentage aren't Australians. You don't seem to have a point. Pov is pov, and controversy is controversy.VictorD7 (talk) 00:26, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
HiLo is one to talk about "bullying"! Every single comment he made resorted to ad hominem!TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:32, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm very sorry, but I had an edit conflict with your revert of my US economy statistics update[edit]

Hi Victor, I didn't know what to do just now. Please see Talk:United States#Edit conflict, issue with "45000" figure?. Can you please delete just the portion you disagree with and we can go from there? I updated at least a dozen statistics. I can't find any mention of "45000" so I really can't tell what you are objecting to. EllenCT (talk) 20:45, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Ellen. I replied with a more in depth explanation to the Talk Page section you created. VictorD7 (talk) 21:23, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you[edit]

Socratic Barnstar Hires.png The Socratic Barnstar
For keeping your cool in the discussion at Talk:United States#Heritage Foundation section break, I present to you this barnstar. May you continue your factual based positions and being civil in heated discussions in the future. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

America redirect discussion[edit]

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)

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)

the difference is[edit]

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.

So why did you do it? --Golbez (talk) 21:38, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

United States -> poor[edit]

"Added government sources, but next time effort to verify something before deleting." You added material from a biased source. Don't blame me for the problem. You started it.

"If you want to purge biased sourced we can't be one sided. Plenty of leftist ones in the section and on the page we'd have to delete." Thank you for using inflammatory rhetoric like "leftist." And now you're threatening me that material I might approve of might have to be deleted? Let me ask you a question: Are you a paid employee of the Heritage Foundation? Because you don't seem to have the interests of Wikipedia foremost in your mind.

Bottom line: I refrained from describing Heritage as a right-wing extremist organization led by Jim DeMint, one of the most vicious partisan politicians in Washington DC, with the objective of ending all social welfare programs. And I could have pointed out that quoting these people on the poor is a little bit like quoting the KKK on African-Americans. But I didn't. Out of respect for you, based on WP:AGF. Please don't make me regret that decision. Arcanicus (talk) 13:39, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Heritage is America's most prominent mainstream conservative think tank and this inclusion was discussed on the Talk Page a year or so ago. It's been up since then without challenge. If you have a complaint about long standing consensus text you tag it and/or start a Talk Page section to discuss it. If you had simply done that I could have easily answered any questions you had. I've also posted the government sources on the TP before for the sake of transparency, but adding them to the article wasn't needed because we had a consensus. My statement about further deletions only meant we need a consistent standard. Virtually every source on Wikipedia is "biased" in some way. That's allowed. We strive for neutrality in the article text. You can't purge conservative sources while leaving loads of leftist sources, including think tanks like CBPP, activist academics like Smeeding and Saez, and even liberal blogs. Wikipedia can't be a forum for one sided political propaganda, though there are certainly some hacks floating around who see this place as a vehicle for pushing agendas rather than constructing a quality encyclopedia. I have my own political views as you clearly do, but I do have Wikipedia's interests in mind, which is why I'm fair and always willing to hash things out in a rational manner on the Talk Page. Oh and no, I don't typically give out personal info online but I'm not affiliated with Heritage in any way. Finally, it's taking enormous restraint for me to refrain from saying what your disgusting "KKK" comparison actually says about you. VictorD7 (talk) 18:36, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Don't directly chop up or alter someone else's post. That's basic Talk Page etiquette. I reverted you and will respond to your reposted commments below:
Calling Heritage a "mainstream conservative" anything does not make it mainstream. It is not mainstream.
Of course it is. You obviously don't know much about American politics.
And the length of time that anything has been on a Wikipedia page really doesn't prove anything, though it does certainly suggest that the only reason it's been there so long is because no one noticed it till now.
No, the text was shaped by several different editors and discussed on the Talk Page. It's been there so long because it contains undisputed, notable facts.
You do not own Wikipedia.
Neither do you, but there are rules and standards.
You were challenged several times by people deleting your biased content and you did nothing to address their concerns but to "claim" you had govt statistics.
Wrong. A dimwitted, dishonest political propaganda spammer with a throw anything at the wall (even when it's poorly written and he demonstrably hasn't even read or understood his own sources) and see if it sticks shtick tried to delete it out of spite without even offering a rational reason for doing so in the summary section, much less accepting invitations to discuss the matter on the Talk Page.
That you claim to have had a consensus doesn't make it a fact and it doesn't mean you will continue to have a consensus for all eternity.
Which is why the Talk Page is there, to challenge consensus. In the absence of a consensus for change the status quo rules.
Yes, I'm sure as a conservative you would see it that way because you're trying to support your own argument with imaginative claims and anyone who disagrees with YOU must obviously be biased. Myself, I don't look at the world that way. I think the vast majority of information placed on Wikipedia by editors with any integrity is as close to objective as possible.
Clearly you're deluded, but you're the one here whining about bias and intolerantly trying to purge sources with whom you disagree, not me.
I can do a lot of things and I don't need your permission. If you think there's terabytes of evil "leftist" biased information, then why are you telling me about it? Are you asking my permission to delete it?
No, because biased sources are allowed, especially when they're only being used to support verifiable, undisputed notable facts. It's the article itself that should be as neutral as possible. I'm only rejecting your proposed absurd double standard where political sources you disagree with are purged while agenda driven sources you agree with are allowed to stay.
Sorry, I don't happen to believe that anyone who would post Heritage "articles" here to be "fair" or "fair-minded." The very president of the organization is the least fair-minded person in DC, possibly on planet Earth. Also, it sounds a little too much like the absurd "fair and balanced" tag line used by your favorite Murdoch house organ.
That's nice. You're clearly a hypocritical halfwit who's getting boring fast, but go on.
Anything you might say on that subject I would probably regard as a compliment. But if you want to go ahead and insult me personally it's really not a problem. I might only be trying to goad you into a statement that would get you banned.
So you might just be a troll? I can't say I'm shocked. VictorD7 (talk) 00:01, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
"Don't directly chop up or alter someone else's post. That's basic Talk Page etiquette."
And, regardless, you just couldn't resist responding to me point by point. But then I'm used to seeing conservatives violate their own so-called "principles." It happens so routinely.
But let's see how many personal attacks you tossed around so far: "A dimwitted, dishonest political propaganda spammer..." "Clearly you're deluded..." "'re the one here whining about bias..." "...your proposed absurd double standard..." "You're clearly a hypocritical halfwit..." "So you might just be a troll?"
So I must say: job well done. You're certainly living up to expectations. Arcanicus (talk) 23:37, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Maybe you should review: Arcanicus (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:05, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Your response left me with no option but to alter your post since it had altered mine. No violation, though your one sided ideological focus is noted. Your whining about personal attacks might be less laughable if you hadn't started this by attacking my motives (I'll leave it to you to look up the rule about Assuming Good Faith), accusing me of not having Wikipedia's best interest at heart, and even at one point speculating that I might be a paid agent of an outfit you hate. Clearly you're the one behaving trollishly here (you all but admitted as much), and when you're done tiring yourself out here I might delete this section as trollish spam. Update: One clarification from earlier for the record - I indicated I couldn't remember precisely how long the Heritage inclusion had been there; it was added in early April, so six months. Still a long time. VictorD7 (talk) 00:26, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for attacking me personally yet again. "Your whining..."
"Your response left me with no option..." Your talk page doesn't appear to be broken so it looks to me like you can freely edit text any way you might want.
"Clearly you're the one behaving trollishly..." You started the deletes and you contacted me on my talk page. If you don't like the responses you get after trying to impose your perspective on everybody that's your problem.
"...accusing me of not having Wikipedia's best interest..." You have a very short memory: "But I didn't. Out of respect for you, based on WP:AGF."
"...speculating that I might be a paid agent..." I didn't "speculate" about you being an "agent." The following is known as a question: "Let me ask you a question: Are you a paid employee of the Heritage Foundation?"
"...and when you're done tiring yourself out..." And yet you continue trying to prove that I'm wrong when you have already admitted I'm right by posting links to govt sources as I suggested. Arcanicus (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:33, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Oh, so tacking on that slippery disclaimer meant you weren't impugning my motives, lol. What a relief. And no, the government sources aren't necessary since the Heritage piece is so well referenced (unlike many sources from leftist blogs and such that fill the section), but I've always been willing to post them in the interest of magnanimity, and offered to do so months ago on the Talk Page as I said. VictorD7 (talk) 19:51, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

October 2013[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at United States. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. —Darkwind (talk) 18:11, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
I won't bother with a formal appeal since the guide indicates it could take several days or more and I had been considering taking a day or so off from Wikipedia anyway, but for the record I will say that the 48 hour block (twice as long as what's apparently the typical block for a first offense) was unwarranted. I've always been reasonable and a simple posted warning would have been enough to get my attention and cause me to be more careful about edit warring if you really thought there was something wrong with my behavior; certainly a standard 24 hour block would have been more than sufficient, and neither was tried before the block was imposed without warning or a chance given for me to defend or explain myself.
On the noticeboard you said the justification for the long block you imposed was me saying ""I'll keep stopping [you"], indicating a clear intent to continue edit warring,", but you left out the highly pertinent portion of the rest of the quote, where I said Until you actually address the issue on the Talk Page I'll keep stopping your attempt to ram through discredited partisan propaganda from a lobbying outfit. The clear intent of that statement was to direct the two posters edit warring with me into a Talk Page discussion, which they had refused to participate in in any meaningful way. If anything that should be a mitigating, not aggravating, factor in a situation where both sides are clearly intent on continuing edit warring.EllenCT, the one who reported me, lied* her ass off about me on the noticeboard. A close examination of the record will show that I've acted honestly and in good faith every step of the way, and have always been willing to hash things out on the Talk Page. I favor neutrally worded text that enhances encyclopedic quality, I use sources from across the ideological spectrum, and I'm fair minded. She and the other poster are the unscrupulous partisan hacks who have repeatedly demonstrated bad faith. Ellen refused to answer clear, pertinent, reasonable questions on the substance in dispute or even acknowledge vital facts and arguments (on various issues [1], [2] the most salient unanswered questions and points are near the bottom; obvoiusly I haven't yet responded to the last couple of comments, including good faith but partially incorrect ones by Mattnad conflating personal income taxes with total federal taxes, [3]), instead using the Talk Page to launch baseless personal attacks. She clearly gamed the system by reverting a single item numerous times over a few days (and has since resumed that activity; [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]), though apparently carefully avoiding the fourth edit in a 24 hour period (still a punishable offense). She even committed vandalism, turning an image into a busted red text ([11]) and then repeating that "mistake" even after being warned about it ([12]), at which point another, overly generous editor reverted her ([13]). The other poster who edit warred with me was less careful about timing, reverting several times a day (e.g. [14], [15], [16], [17]; in that last one actually deleted a perfectly valid government source, straight up lying in the edit summary about fixing a link), spamming low quality edits that reduced article quality, and largely ignoring the Talk Page altogether, though you didn't see fit to block him. I remembered there was a "3R" rule but frankly I couldn't remember the details about it (or even that it was 4 rather than 3 reverts per day that violate it), and it didn't seem like the rule was being enforced for others (because it wasn't), so I figured good faith reverts to steer reluctant participants into the Talk Page process would be at least as alright as the other stuff going on. This was essentially a two on one fest where the two behaved mendaciously and occasionally mentioned the Talk Page in edit summaries but didn't seriously participate, both sides edit warred, and apparently no other honest people followed the dispute closely. If blocking was deemed necessary then one should have been placed on the article or at least on all three editors, rather than in such a one sided fashion.

-*She even made this claim on the noticeboard:
“Victor has been deleting others' comments about his relentless right-wing POV pushing from the talk page without archiving the sections involved, and trying to keep complaints about his editing disconnected from his name.[18]"
Let’s examine the section (it was one, not plural as she falsely claimed) in question. It was a callout section, simply titled with my name and devoid of any specifics (violating all sorts of Talk Page rules right there), started by a self-described “socialist” with a long history of trolling that Talk Page with insult laden propaganda spiels that he never bothered to follow up on with any productive discussion. Here’s an admin warning him about it. ([19]). Here’s the last time I remember interacting with him months ago ([20], note how polite and informative my reply was; I simply answered his question without returning hostility).
One respondent was a leftist hack with a throw a bunch of low quality propaganda at the wall and see if any of it sticks schtick (seriously, check out that guy’s history) who often doesn’t read or understand his own sources, who seems allergic to the Talk Page, and who’s upset that I’ve actually challenged him in the past. Apart from that rare appearance he’s almost entirely ignored me repeatedly practically begging him to participate on the Talk Page. He’s a driveby artist. The other respondent’s political agenda and trollish nature is still visible on my Talk Page in the section immediately above. Neither had anything more specific or substantive to say than the op did.
Ellen was the only respondent to say anything specific, and she decided to piggy back onto this troll section. When she declined to start a new section for her concerns (which had nothing to do with my “accuracy” or came close to demonstrating anything about my alleged “agenda”), I started one for her and generously answered all of her questions ([21]). Then she did a sweeping revision ([22]) of the Talk Page, merging multiple completely different sections together under the troll section bearing my name, which had been dormant for days and was on the verge of being archived (I had magnanimously allowed it to stay), to give it renewed emphasis and ensure that it would remain on the page indefinitely. I reverted and finally deleted the troll thread ([23], [24]), then Ellen reverted me and reestablished the rule violating, totally ad hominem and substanceless section. ([25]). I reverted her again in a futile attempt to get the page back on substance ([26], only deleting the brief troll section, restoring all the legitimate sections), and apparently after that she went to the noticeboard and actually used this display as a piece of evidence against me. I challenge any honest person to read through this Talk Page exchange and explain how I wasn’t in the right.
And no, I don’t expect you to read all this or probably care much about what I have to say. If I had faith in the Wikipedia system I wouldn’t have bothered creating this account to begin with to do my small part to help improve this place, because it would have already been fine on its own. Even if you’re operating with impeccable faith you probably have a lot of other things to do with your time than delve into the details of a dispute, though that’s often what’s required to get the full truth. But I’m posting this anyway because the truth should be laid out for the record.

VictorD7 (talk) 12:11, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Tax Charts[edit]

I tend to agree with your comments regarding the graph changes here and here, but they were reverted by User:Lance_Friedman stating "restored sourced material". So perhaps you could add a reference to the material and try again. Morphh (talk) 04:13, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

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)

there were several edits made[edit]

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)

Looks like they've been reverted, but thanks for the heads up. VictorD7 (talk) 23:57, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.[edit]


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! EarwigBot operator / talk 02:11, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edits to Crime and Law enforcement[edit]

I was more willing to compromise by keeping the Southern crime statistics while removing that one superfluous, unnecessary sentence on where guns are imported from. If he had reverted that one, I would have certainly put my foot down and not allowed my legitimate concerns to be stepped on by leftist soapboxers. However you fully restored my removals and made other changes there, and in an article where quite a few people are against any changes you make yourself, just be prepared to most likely have them reverted and do battle once again with the same people. Though I wouldn't necessarily refrain from defending those changes. Cadiomals (talk) 21:59, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Try not to reply to Ellen on "Well-developed but decaying"[edit]

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)

WP:ANI#Continued deletion of complaints about biased editing abuses[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. EllenCT (talk) 07:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested[edit]

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.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 23:37, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected[edit]

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.

For the Mediation Committee, Sunray (talk) 08:29, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

A beer for you![edit]

Export hell seidel steiner.png Thanks for improving the article US economy and remaining calm with other users. Here's a beer to relax with. Meatsgains (talk) 03:27, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


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)

Thanks, Jacksoncw. I hope you hang around. That article needs all the reasonable people it can get. VictorD7 (talk) 20:35, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

US Talk page[edit]

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)

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)

Great Recession, internet & the economy[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, VictorD7. You have new messages at Victor falk's talk page.
Message added 06:06, 8 April 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

That's weird, I didn't mean to do that[edit]

It probably has something to do with an edit conflict *shrugs*. Cadiomals (talk) 07:43, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

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)

Car, appliances, etc[edit]

They are consumer goods and do not count as financial assets. /Cheers walk victor falk talk 20:11, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

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)
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, walk victor falk talk 20:50, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
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)


As I mentioned in the ANI, the remarks are getting personal. But BrownHairedGirl did the right thing in closing the ANI. (And you will note I "hatted" the remarks on the United States article talk page.) Still, I agree there are problems. Perhaps you'd like to look to WP:RFCC for assistance. – S. Rich (talk) 18:59, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with BrownHairedGirl's premature closure and left a message explaining why on her talk page. I'm not sure how it's the right thing if the unacceptable behavior continues. This isn't a content dispute. VictorD7 (talk) 19:06, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Like I said, the comments are insidious. So, if the unacceptable behavior continues, you will have a stronger case even if BHG has "prematurely" closed the ANI. – S. Rich (talk) 19:14, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Another suggestion. Do not respond on BHG's page. Nothing will come of it. BHG will not reopen the ANI. Asking for action at this stage is WP:OTHERPARENT. Follow her advice and do not pursue. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 03:58, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
She closed it before I had a chance, right after EllenCT showed up and, while leveling a series of false accusations, actually said she sees no real difference between someone being paid to edit and "inserting paid misleading propaganda" (whatever the hell that even means). She didn't even seize the moment to clarify that she wasn't accusing me of being paid, only that she had "no evidence" about whether I'm being paid to edit, clearly leaving it open as a possibility and doubling down on what's apparently her intentional ambiguity with the rest of her comments. One would have thought she would have returned insisting "No, that's not what I meant at all!", even if it had been, given the nature of the dispute that unfolded, but she couldn't bring herself to do that. There's no indication she'll stop going around making these false accusations to try and discredit me, even in unrelated pages and sections, which only a moron would claim aren't personal attacks. Sure, they're lame personal attacks, but they can sway some people if I don't divert time from more productive activity to address them. She's essentially been given a green light to troll. I'll try to settle things with Ellen on her talk page (where you can see others have tried and failed, including me in the past), but BrownHairedGirl's handling of this issue has been indefensible. VictorD7 (talk) 17:41, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
BHG did the right thing, period. (Take a look at her record – she is an awesome Wikipedian – number 20 in the list of most active contributors!) Follow her advice and put down the stick. Here is another piece of advice: WP:DNR. Okay? Good. Now you can relax and enjoy Wikipedia. – S. Rich (talk) 06:15, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
That's not a substantive argument, and to me quality trumps quantity. Since Ellen has shown she has no intention of stopping her false accusations, I'm currently making one more good faith effort to resolve the situation on her talk page. Your post here accomplished nothing positive, S. Rich. VictorD7 (talk) 06:22, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Victor, you mention quality over quantity. But over 76% of your edits have been on the talk pages. When you have but 367 edits to the mainspace, there is not much to boast about in terms of quality. (IOW, talk page remarks do not help the Project when they are simply a forum for bickering.) With these numbers in mind, it looks like you are more interested in arguing than anything else. Don't get me wrong. I do not like the way Ellen is contributing. But I cannot point to you as an accomplished Wikipedian. – S. Rich (talk) 05:54, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't boasting. I'm not sure why you're here, S. Rich. In my opinion Wikipedia sucks. So telling me someone has had a significant influence on it for a long time isn't necessarily a ringing endorsement, though my specific comments on the admin were about her handling of this one case and not her editing history. My quality/quantity remark was just a general response to your implication that a high post count makes one an "awesome Wikipedian". It doesn't, and it's disturbing that so many here seem to feel it does. As for me, instead of just complaining about Wiki quality like most outside observers I decided to pitch in and do what I could to be a small part of the solution. I only signed up in 2012 though and my schedule only lets me post so often, so I've never been one to worry about my raw contribution count. And I totally disagree with you on the Talk Pages. Much of what happens on articles (or ends up not happening) is influenced dramatically or subtly by talk page commentary, and other editors have indicated that I've had a much larger impact on articles than my direct article edit count might suggest (for good or ill, though the praisers and complainers both tend to fall into the camps that make me happy, if you know what I mean). While I'm fine with you hatting personal commentary on article talk pages, S. Rich, I think you should disengage from this ongoing user talk page discussion between me and Ellen. Your participation has accomplished nothing but distraction and potential derailment. Surely you have better things to do than hang around and argue about a situation you aren't involved in and apparently know nothing about. VictorD7 (talk) 18:29, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
I think you're just feeding the trolls when it comes to EllenCT. She probably delights in getting people to argue with her, and she then twists and turns to keep it going. When an editor sticks the topic, she eventually goes away and never gives a straight answer. This is the same pattern for articles - she'll inserts her POV and then go back to why it's relevant because she says so, even when the source does not support what she has inserted. Sample here User_talk:EllenCT#Edits_to_Government_spending. You won't get satisfaction.Mattnad (talk) 12:14, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Ditto. As I said, the best course of action is to WP:DENY recognition. – S. Rich (talk) 15:29, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

United States again, oligarchy.[edit]

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)

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)

Gini in Template:infobox country[edit]

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)

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)
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)

American politics arbitration evidence[edit]

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)

A question re your evidence[edit]

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) [27]

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 [28] 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)

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 [29]. I replied to correct her [30], she rejected what I said and persisted in her off point focus [31], at which point Arzel posted the comment EllenCT linked to in her evidence [32]. 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)
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)
Agreed and thanks, S. Philbrick. Let me know if you have any other questions. VictorD7 (talk) 22:23, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)

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)

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)

Arbcom workshop[edit]

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)

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)

Thought you might appreciate this.Mattnad (talk) 23:36, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

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)

Evidence phase now closed[edit]

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)

Edit summaries should be neutral[edit]

Please don't leave edit summaries like this one. Impolite edit summaries cannot be changed, and so it would be best if they are as neutral as possible. Thanks. LK (talk) 11:33, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what was "impolite" about it since we agree you were mistaken on some points, though I'll refrain from mentioning your name from now on in edit summaries as I can see how that can be problematic. More concerning is your edit warring against consensus to remove a segment present in the article since at least 2010, LK, while falsely accusing me of being "disruptive" for one revert of your attempt to remove said material while explaining that you were incorrect on policy. Long standing material represents the status quo and requires consensus to remove. It is not equivalent to new material, sourced or not, that you wish to add. VictorD7 (talk) 17:53, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Actually, you re-added the material, not once, but twice in the last three days. However, I agree that I shouldn't have used the term 'disruptive' in the edit summary – its excessive and I apologize for writing that in the heat of the moment. You are mistaken in having consensus, there seem to actually be more editors opposing rather than supporting your edit. Personally, I wouldn't claim consensus for something unless a !vote or a RfC has been held. Practice on Wikipedia (see WP:BRD) is to remove disputed material until consensus is reached, it is disruptive to continually re-add disputed material unless clear consensus is reached (which, I agree, you have not done). LK (talk) 03:22, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
No, LK, the first time I removed additions and alterations you added unilaterally, while the second time I reverted you for removing the segment entirely, and no, it seems there have been at least four to six editors opposing your various proposed changes (though in fairness they've been morphing). By Wikipedia policy consensus is required to change the status quo, not required to keep it. Consensus is assumed even if a unilateral bold edit goes unopposed, so certainly an RFC isn't necessary to establish it. That segment has been there since at least 2010. Clearly your edits don't have consensus support. Editors are being extremely forbearing, but your deletion was improper and will likely be reverted at some point regardless of what happens in the course of the ongoing discussion. VictorD7 (talk) 06:27, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Nice one! Hiding the part of the talkpage that proves you wrong. And we also have two more partisan edits. I think we have bingo. BTW, still waiting for you to identify one edit from your history not done from a conservative POV. LK (talk) 04:23, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

PS. I don't think we have anything more to say to one another, so I won't be leaving you any more messages. I'ld appreciate it if you leave me alone as well. I believe that one thing we can mutually agree on is a mutual self-initiated interaction-ban. Goodbye, LK (talk) 05:57, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

No, LK, in fact I didn't delete it because your behavior is so revealing that it's worth keeping. I just hatted it since you otherwise would have kept posting to repeat your baseless diversion indefinitely and it was already space consuming. You again failed to address the actual, concrete cases of biased editing I caught you in, but your latest post is worth keeping too because it's so amusing. Your first link of my allegedly "partisan edits" is me reverting a (partisan) editor who's adding income shares from a completely different data set to the preexisting caption of a CBO tax burden share (combining apples and oranges). My revert indicated that I'd be fine with adding income shares, but it should be the ones provided in the same CBO source, which is what readers would have assumed his additions were if I hadn't bothered to look more closely. The edit was preposterously low quality. He didn't even fill out the reference except for a link (which was to a dated partisan opinion pdf full of some guy's personal research), and only cited his new source in caption text via last name mention (as though people are supposed to know who the hell "Wolff" is). My edit summary was civil and generous, especially under the circumstances. I would love for you to explain in what universe my revert was "partisan". Any responsible editor of any political persuasion with at least a rudimentary education would do as I did, and nothing I did advanced a "conservative POV". The CBO isn't conservative to begin with, and all I did was correct a basic error that would be a mistake regardless of the sources being mixed.
My second edit you linked to was me reverting after you replaced the CBO chart with a German chart sourced by a German language page, and I gave my very solid reason for reverting in my edit summary (as I did in the first one). You also failed to explain how my act there was allegedly "partisan", but you'll have an opportunity to explain yourself on the appropriate talk page section I started. So far you haven't even tried to articulate an argument that any of my edits are "partisan" (you just haphazardly, falsely assert it), while I've documented specific examples of apparently politically motivated inconsistency on your part. Oh, and while I haven't deleted your diatribes here, contrary to your initial (since corrected) claim just now, you did delete and cravenly dodge my more pertinent question on your talk page that deserved a substantive answer. The cloud of hypocrisy engulfing you is thick enough to write on. The only one here who's been proved "wrong" on anything is you, like when you claimed ([33]) ITEP doesn't attribute corporate taxes to shareholders (decisively refuted [34], though you incredibly refused to acknowledge ITEP's own quotes contradicting you), when you sloppily claimed ([35]) that the discrepancy between ITEP and TPC highlighted in my section op was due to the latter capturing the post 2013 tax hikes (despite me clearly marking and describing them as both covering 2011 [36], [37]), when you claimed ([38], [39]) the Oxford Journal study I linked to excluded sales taxes and most state taxes (debunked [40], [41]) after repeatedly arguing from the mistaken premise that considering state/local would make the US look less rather than more progressive vis a vis Europe, etc.. I could go on, though in most cases you refused to explicitly admit you had been wrong, when being willing to do so (and get on the same factual page with others) is a prerequisite to the good faith rationality required for productive collaboration. I hope you reconsider your outlook and editing goals here. Have a nice day. VictorD7 (talk) 07:42, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Arbcom is for conduct[edit]

@EllenCT & @VictorD7 I note edits such as this and this are more about content than conduct. While we normally prefer content discussions to conduct in most places, an Arbcom case is one of the few places where conduct, rather than content, should be discussed. Please stop the content dispute on the workshop page.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:25, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

German Tax Graph[edit]

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)

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)

Unhatting Progressive tax discussion[edit]

Unhatting the commentary does not assist in moving the dialogue along. The comments you made were WP:TPNO. To wit: Your edit summary The first post was a valid observation about commentary. is legitimate only to the extent it identifies that you are commenting about the comments – but... "It seems"? A vague personal anecdote? You took the rhetorical comment and directly turned it into an observation about the editor. ... it's unclear if they've even fully read the discussion. Directly personal and does not assume good faith. This is the type of drive by commentary I warned about ... If you have warnings to issue to editors, do so on their talk pages – saying drive by does not AGF. If the discussion had stopped there, that would be fine, even if the comment did not help much. But there were subsequent personal comments by you and the others that disrupted the discussion. Your closing remark – Your opinion is noted. Let me know if you have something substantive to contribute. – was just too much. Because of it someone had to close the whole bit of nonsense and your first comment was the best place to start. I am rehatting that portion of the commentary because none of it is helpful. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 15:22, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Branding a valid observation as "personal" remarks doesn't assist in moving the dialogue along, S. Rich, especially when the exchange you complain about had already ended some time ago. Your accusation that my post was WP:TPNO is preposterous. My comments fall under none of the categories described in that section (threats, posting personal details, etc.). The RFC section is full of editors commenting on votes and rationales, as are all such RFCs I've even seen. Pointing out that the posts in question lacked any sources and appeared to disregard even the established facts in the RFC op are well within the reasonable bounds of such commentary. "Drive by" is commonly used to describe the downsides of the RFC process, and simply refers to uninvolved editors posting a comment on a complex issue and then leaving. It's not a personal insult. It's not a "warning" to the editors in question. It's commentary about the RFC that belongs where the RFC is, not on a user's talk page. And my final line you quoted was simply a sincere invitation. I've noticed that you're extremely quick to hat other people's comments. I've never opposed you before, but here you crossed the line. You even admit that my initial post would be "fine" by itself. Then hat the subsequent replies if you must, but your attempt to hat my valid observation has already been reverted. I'd advise you against edit warring to rehat it. Since the exchange was already dormant (and only consisted of three short subsequent posts anyway), at this point you're causing more disruption than the posts in question did. VictorD7 (talk) 15:42, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
So you and Gnome are now extending the "dormant" personal discussion. Nothing was added to the "pertinent discussion" by either of you. And how is it that your unhatting of the discussion was any different than my hatting it – you were seeking to impose your will on discussion, as an involved party, just as much as I was. My stance, though, is neutral, uninvolved, non-personal, and would have closed that bit of nonsense. Also, your edit summary mischaracterized my hatting as a personal "attack" and disruptive while I actually labeled the hat as "personal comments". Charactering my rehatting as edit warring was not appropriate either. – S. Rich (talk) 17:28, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
S. Rich, I have no desire to argue with you over something this small. Gnome didn't post in that line again until after the hatting back and forth you initiated stirred things back up, and my response was an attempt to defuse the situation. I stand by my objection to you branding my valid observation about those presented rationales as merely a "personal" remark. My characterization that you were describing my actions as a "'personal' attack" (I only quoted the "personal" part) was based on your claim here that my post somehow violated WP:TPNO, which I strongly reject. I described your action as "edit warring" because you unilaterally reverted my revert of you. I'm not sure if "edit warring" has a precise, technical definition, but I honestly disagree with you about the value of observing that posters made unsubstantiated or invalid arguments (for example, a personal anecdote about having lived in the US all his life and not feeling that taxes are very progressive, without citing any facts or even acknowledging that the topic deals with an international comparison, much less the fact that the RFC op stipulated that the opposing parties agreed that US taxation is more progressive than in other developed countries), so I don't think you should persist in unilaterally trying to hide the comments. I think the RFC would probably be better served if you worried less about others' alleged behavior and actually participated in the substantive discussion. You seem to be interested in page happenings. VictorD7 (talk) 18:41, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom PD[edit]

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)

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)

Progressive Taxes[edit]

You're not going to win the argument against the RFC. It was designed to achieve the outcome LK wanted and people can go back to it and not parse the details. I suggest you open another RFC, this time focusing on the which sources we should select. Perhaps stacking up CBO and other authoritative sources against ITEP and whatever bloggish material that comes out with a more partisan view of things.Mattnad (talk) 13:22, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Given how unimpressive admin has been lately I never expected to reverse the RFC close and it wasn't even me who filed the review. I just thought the factual record needed correction, and at least the closing admin's remarks have been exposed as sloppy and at least partially inaccurate at best. VictorD7 (talk) 18:33, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Two Cents[edit]

Hey, just wanted to give my impression of the stuff between you and EllenCT. First of all, you are absolutely right -- she is way over the top. That said, you could still end up being sanctioned if you give the committee an excuse[42]. Don't let it happen. In particular, accusing her with this or that at the wrong place/time could hurt your case. Save your powder for when it counts. (talk) 20:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Sure, but I'm not going to kowtow or walk on egg shells around some corrupt morons abusing their power. The committee has shown its true colors, and coming after me because I say something true that hurts their feelings while they continue to ignore truly egregious and disruptive behavior by EllenCT because they deem her useful to the movement's propaganda efforts would only underscore the double standard. VictorD7 (talk) 20:52, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl...not impressive.[edit]

@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)

Please don't canvas other editors[edit]

You know that canvassing is to be avoided as you mention a mild example above. This[43] edit looks like a text book example of the sort of canvassing that editors should avoid. Dougweller (talk) 13:13, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Wrong, Dougweller. The poster I contacted has already been involved in these discussions and said he'd continue to be. I just didn't know if he was aware of very recent developments. By contrast, in the example you mention above months earlier another user had contacted an editor who wasn't already involved in the discussion and hadn't posted on the article in question or its talk page in quite some time. Even then I wasn't specifically complaining about canvassing per se so much as contacting that particular editor with a long history of demonstrated incompetence and disruptive behavior "canvass style". VictorD7 (talk) 17:33, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I think Doug's particular concern is with WP:Votestacking and campaigning. Not death-penalty offenses by any means, and not too much of a concern when we have editors quite active on these topics. Perhaps it was prompted by the fact that you had pinged me on the article talk page. So it looks like Doug is seeking to be fair and to get the discussion more even tempered. (By way of example, a couple of weeks ago I pinged several editors who had commented in a related discussion about a new thread on the same topic. Was I vote-stacking? Well, I contacted everyone who had previously contributed, only they had all opined from one viewpoint. There were no other editors to ping who had a different view. I certainly was not campaigning in my messages to them.) Here the better course of action is to simply say "You might find this discussion of interest" – and leave it at that. And then I'd forget about it. – S. Rich (talk) 22:38, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

RSN thread[edit]

If you don't mind, I'd like to close the RSN thread. We do not need a third forum for the America topic. – S. Rich (talk) 06:05, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Fine with me. VictorD7 (talk) 15:51, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I posted my statement about the frivolous complaint. VictorD7 (talk) 18:09, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

America Talk page[edit]

Please don't characterize comments as vandalism. Please do not refactor other's comments. – S. Rich (talk) 22:26, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I didn't. I characterized the juvenile drawings he was peppering the talk page with as vandalism. They clearly are. WP:VAN: "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content, in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Examples of typical vandalism are adding irrelevant obscenities and crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting obvious nonsense into a page....."Upon discovery, you should revert clearly vandalizing edits."
[44] "Uploading shock images, inappropriately placing explicit images on pages, or simply using any image in a way that is disruptive. Please note though that Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors and that explicit images may be uploaded and/or placed on pages for legitimate reasons (that is, if they have encyclopedic value)."
Are you seriously defending Gamaliel's disruptive trolling, S. Rich? VictorD7 (talk) 22:43, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I was trying to lighten things up since your anger dial seems to be permanently on 11. I've found that this often lightens the mood in unreasonably tense discussions. If this has the opposite effect, then I will refrain, but do please try to stay on topic. Srich32977 was trying to disrupt the tension as well, by closing a fruitless tangent. Reopening it will do nothing to keep the discussion on topic or relieve the tension levels. Gamaliel (talk) 22:50, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
My alleged "anger" isn't the issue. I'm perfectly calm. You were dodging the key question by trying to bury it in a trollfest of unfunny pictures. Hatting would have been appreciated if Srich hadn't started at the wrong place and concealed my legitimate post prefacing the banal farce. I'll charitably chalk his error up to clumsiness. VictorD7 (talk) 22:54, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
You may be calm, but your comments certainly don't give that impression. It is difficult to accurately convey tone in text sometimes, but whatever the intent of your comments, they come across to other editors as belligerent and accusatory. A calm way of responding would be "I've read the discussion in question and I don't feel it addresses the point at hand for this specific reason. Could you expand on that specific reason that I cited please?" Instead you approach it like you are grilling a hostile witness in a courtroom drama. You might get what you want out of the discussion if you find a way to ask for it politely and specifically instead of complaining about it in what comes across to others as a loud, vague, angry manner. Gamaliel (talk) 23:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I reject the premise that you speak for "other editors". I didn't call you names, I didn't shout, and I didn't curse. You were the one who responded to a reasonable question with a bunch of pictures. If you felt like a pressured witness in a courtroom, let me humbly suggest that maybe it's less about me, and more because your story was falling apart. VictorD7 (talk) 23:39, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
You are either unable or unwilling to see the patently obvious here. Even while you insist that your behavior was appropriate, you still play the part of the hostile lawyer. "A reasonable question?" The same question, belligerently and accusatorily presented multiple times, well after it was already and repeatedly answered. Gamaliel (talk) 23:42, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Victor, I am more on your side, politically, than you realize. And as Gamaliel says I am trying to calm things down. I was not being clumsy in hatting the nonsense, the hat had to start somewhere so I selected a point that I thought would work. Your comment was not especially helpful in the discussion, so I started there. Keep in mind that I'm critical of Gamaliel for "citing" WP:FRINGE in his edit summaries and I've told him so. What he thinks of Brietbart as fringe is another issue – he has a different opinion than I, but there is no sense in debating that. Regarding America, I think that once this silly bickering stops, the article can be improved for the benefit of readers. There is source material about how the film was promoted via some religious groups and there are two positive film reviews available. The Washington Times has some news stories about the film. Sooner or later such stuff can be added in accordance with WP guidelines. So look at me as being even handed and fair. You will enjoy this more. As for the two of you, TWO of you, I urge you to adopt an IBAN for a few days. The NPOVN discussion is not going to resolve anything because it has lost focus. That means the discussion can continue on the article talk page and it will be productive if editors avoid the second person pronoun. – S. Rich (talk) 00:01, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm well aware of your stated politics (I participated in the Austrian dispute, remember?), I didn't openly question your intentions, and I stand by what I said. My comment was not only helpful, but crucial to isolating the crux of the disagreement, and merited a more serous answer than a series of pictures. Since I expressed my dissatisfaction with that response, despite his angry post above, Gamaliel has been posting more reasonably and on topic (sans nonsense pictures), and I think the discussion might be getting back on a productive track.
As for the article's long term future, I have little doubt that you're probably right, and that long after the critical box office period is over, when there's no longer a cynical need for partisans to turn what's supposed to be an encyclopedia page into a one sided propaganda leaflet essentially just saying "DON'T SEE THIS MOVIE!!!!", the page will be pulled more toward neutrality. That's no reason for us to shirk our responsibilities in the mean time. VictorD7 (talk) 00:13, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Request for Amendment to American Politics case[edit]

While I did not suggest anything that relates to you, I did mention you and link to your talk page. See here.

August 2014[edit]

Information icon Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. In this diff [45] you are addressing what the other editor has done and not focusing on what the "claim" is. Moreover, the other editor denied making any false claims, so your repetition of the statement is not helpful. The discussions about America are cantankerous enough without such charges. I strongly suggest that you characterize the statement in a less confrontational tone. Something like "The statement about XYZ is incorrect because ...." Doing so will demonstrate that you assume good faith. (I am posting this notice because Specifico reverted, incorrectly, my posting of the rpa template on your statement. I do not wish to go back to the NPOVN to redo the template.) Thank you.S. Rich (talk) 02:59, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Without getting into whether you or Specifico are right here, I'll point out that the post in question occurred during an admittedly heated exchange that took place over the course of one day, and that the subsequent posts have been extremely civil and focused on the topic (at least through yesterday, I haven't checked the latest replies yet). At this point I'm not sure it's helpful to go back and try to litigate posts that have already been replied to and moved on from. VictorD7 (talk) 16:03, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Victor, I am moving on in the sense that future uncivil and non-AGF comments will be redacted. This will apply to everybody. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 17:43, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Noted. Speaking of false statements, you should allocate some of your effort to answering reasonable requests that you retract incorrect statements you make, or at least reply to explain why you shouldn't. Saying that a specific content segment fails to verify is an explosive charge, and to not retract such a charge, even after the quote proving that it does verify is provided, is disruptive. That's far more substantive and important than whether a clause is phrased with appropriate tact. VictorD7 (talk) 18:29, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


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)

Thanks. That's what I thought, but I wanted to make sure it was clear. I deleted my question. VictorD7 (talk) 15:48, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
You may have to take to DR, the violations of NPOV don't seem to be resolvable at this point. Arzel (talk) 02:47, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
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)

Attribution of corporate taxes paid by income group[edit]

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. [46] Mattnad (talk) 13:52, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

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)

U.S. square area[edit]

Any contributions you may choose to make at Talk:United States#Area in square miles would be welcome.

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)

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)
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.
The results are two A., three B, although one of the Bs says either way, and one of the Bs may be saying no footnote. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

America: Imagine the World Without Her[edit]

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)

I'm fine with such an expansion in principle.VictorD7 (talk) 18:50, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Sounds good! We'll make this article an example for other political documentaries to follow. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:56, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Invitation Regarding Reliable Sources[edit]

Given your recent activity on the talk page of Verifiable, I am inviting you to participate in the discussion I started in regard to establishing a prima facia case for verifiable sources if it is has met and maintained the standards for inclusion in Google News.–GodBlessYou2 (talk) 20:21, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


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. SPECIFICO talk 04:23, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

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)
I asked you to check your understanding of policy, not merely to reassert it. SPECIFICO talk 04:52, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
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)


My advice about the SPA remarks: ignore it. Nothing will come of the remarks as long as they are on the article talk page. My advice about building consensus: walls of text do not help. Be more selective and concise in your remarks, and don't repeat the same argument again and again. – S. Rich (talk) 05:16, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

My advice, S. Rich, is to sharpen your reading and critical thinking skills. I've so far replied to two respondents and the RFC op. My alleged "walls of text" have already convinced one respondent to change his vote, and the op to strike through and replace his entire rationale once I corrected a mistake he made. You should be thanking me for contributing productively to the discussion rather than trying to posture or score self serving points. Speaking of the discussion, you should also actually participate in substantive, on topic exchanges yourself, rather than hanging out to snipe around the edges and focusing on editors' supposed conduct. Who knows? Maybe if you were participating productively I wouldn't have to step up and do it. VictorD7 (talk) 06:12, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Have one on me!![edit]

Thanks for defending[edit]

In-N-Out Burger cheeseburger meal.jpg Outstanding patriot
For your work in defending at WP:RSN. Doing so allows the pillar of neutrality survive here on Wikipedia, by continuing to recognize a diverse set of reliable sources to be utilized for verifying content in articles. Therefore, as a reward have this all-American meal from In-N-Out Burger. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:06, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested[edit]

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.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 19:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


"Critique" does not mean "criticize" in the negative sense. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

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)