User talk:Shadowjams

Welcome to Shadowjams' talk page

Please start new threads at the bottom of the page and tell me what page or edits you're referring to if it's unclear.

Last edited Sunday 2013-03-24 8:32 am UTC by Search4Lancer

United States with territories.

Okay. thanks.

By the way, I am new, so it was frustrating to have three editors argue me down on a source I interpreted as supporting "include territories" -- four months worth on and off. In the last three weeks, I have found two editors, one for "including territories" and one against "including territories", who both see my reading of the source as "include territories" just as I do. My faith in Wikipedia is restored.

I'll try to ruthlessly trim. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:19, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Like I said, I'm new to this discussion so I'm getting the lay of the land. But for context, I found a lot of that discussion really confusing to come into, and I have a few years of wikipedia experience. Sometimes it helps to have someone boil down issues and cut through so much extra detail. Lots of those answers provided that and I have a better grasp on it now. I'll answer more later in the next day or two. Shadowjams (talk) 09:25, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I blanked my earlier post, my repost is, @ Shadowjams, on implications as rewritten following your critique.

_ 1) Articles related to the United States at present should conform to its view of itself at present. The implication is that there should be no unsourced Wiki-specific system to treat republics with territories and monarchies with territories alike. Articles which have done should be amended as discovered.

_ 2) Historical articles should reflect their time alone. The implication is to report earlier and later changes by reference in the introduction and by subsection links. Articles which imply the past is present should be amended as discovered.

_ 3) Data bases for tables, charts, maps and graphs should be used which are commonly available. The implication is to rely on conventions as each government reports itself. Articles with charts and graphs without a labeled scope should be sourced as discovered. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 4:43 am, Today (UTC−5)

_ _ Thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:58, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Just a follow up, I haven't forgotten, I'm just busy at the moment. Shadowjams (talk) 06:54, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Your 3 points above are generally how things work already. As for #3, that's fine but the scope needs to be identified if it's ambiguous. I don't know what you're saying about territories/monarchies. We use the term, whether it's describing the British Empire, or the United States, or the United Kingdom, as the terms are generally used. Usually this requires some context. In the cases where that context is unclear, we elaborate to clarify it.

Here's my more general thoughts about the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States/Defining the United States of America. First, it's in dire need of an outside opinion. That discussion seems to me to be going in unproductive circles, with nobody talking about what matters. That is, reader clarity. Outside input will never happen if people keep writing walls of text for every reply.

Second, there's way too much ink being spilled. I'm not always the most concise, but the discussion has morphed so many heads it's impossible for anyone from the outside to follow. That's probably why there's such a small group of editors discussing it, and few new ones. This is a small discussion, with less than a dozen (maybe half dozen?) active participants. But some are arguing for changing every article that uses the term "United States." No matter what this discussion concludes, without a well-trafficked RfC, there will never be appropriate consensus from such a small discussion for such a large change. And without a more concise approach, that just practically won't happen.

Third, the rote focus on definitions is misguided, and it avoids the only issue that matters, reader clarity. There are clearly multiple official definitions of "United States." Even within official definitions, it depends on context. U.S. is used in the Internal Revenue Code differently than it's used in other sections of the U.S. Code. If you expand that to public laws, court decisions, and colloquial usage, it's even greater. You guys can argue til everyone's blue in the face and never conclude anything because both are correct, depending on the context.

Whichever definition picked: territories + 50 states + dc, or 50 states + dc (these are the two definitions being discussed; though one would have to dig through tons of text to know that), both have the problem of requiring additional explanation in many contexts. The "one's ambiguous" argument is equally true for both.

Here's my basic conclusion: this discussion is largely unneeded. Many articles use the term "United States" without any ambiguity right now, and it's clear depending on their context. When it's not clear, such as in the introduction or general use in the United States article, it should be clarified. The infobox should list population of 50 states + dc, and then population including territories, possessions, etc. When it's unclear, specify it. This discussion is largely ineffective, partly because of style (nobody from the outside can penetrate such a verbose discussion), and partly because the focus on specific definitions misses the point. There is no one definition that's so obviously correct that it trumps concerns over reader expectation. And ultimately, that's what every policy on WP:TITLE and WP:DISAMBIG is getting at. Shadowjams (talk) 02:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I may post some of these ideas to the discussion later. Shadowjams (talk) 03:01, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I would like to address the problem of "exclude territory" editor citing references that are "include territory". Lets look at the two uses of Sloane by TFD. Earlier on TFD, spent much text to say, Puerto Rico is not a part of the U.S., referencing a Puerto Rico independence movement press release.

_ _ The petitioners were heard a couple years ago, although the Cuban representative courteously explained that international procedure required mutual negotiations between U.S. and Puerto Ricans, the U.N. would take no direct action on the U.S. The committee report was not placed on the U.N. General Assembly agenda, to return Puerto Rico to the list monitored as occupied colonial peoples. Professor Sloane is a reliable scholar who points out in one of two articles referenced by TFD that both U.N. "elites" and "a majority" in the U.N. Assembly believe the U.S.-PR relationship violates no international law. Only a "small minority" of the international community does so. So I say, WP:fringe if that is Sloane's estimation, considering where he is coming from.

_ _ There are republic nation-state members of the U.N. with territories such as the U.S. and France which meet the U.N. standard of "self-determination" for overseas populations as nation-state minorities. These three criteria are set out in a TFD source, Lawson and Sloane (Boston College Law Review) analysis of PR constitutional and international status. PR has 1) fundamental human rights, 2) local autonomy, and 3) participation in nation councils. Lawson and Sloane concluded that the territorial Member of Congress, like that of previous territories in U.S. constitutional practice was sufficient, the lack of presidential electors did not "disqualify" PR as having "self-determination". Self-determination is what populations get in states and territories of a federal republic. Local autonomy does NOT dissolve the union of a modern republic in an internationally recognized nation-state.

_ _ An additional consideration Lawson and Sloane addressed was their interest in PR consultation in any constitutional changes in its status. Since the article, in 2012 PR held its own plebiscite without Congressional approval -- it included "independence" on the ballot. For the third time in sixty years, only 4% of all Puerto Ricans voting chose independence, the majority declaring for commonwealth or enhanced commonwealth, 15% of the total for statehood. The vote was two-tiered as recommended by U.N. plebiscite convention, making vote-count-interpretation difficult. 48% of the total voted status quo in the first round. In some online news sources, independence was reported as 6% from the second round.

_ _ I am now into the weeds, tall grass, bullrushes, whatever the WP image is. The point is that TFD requires statehood to be "a part of the U.S." The only source I can find is 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. None is provided by "exclude territories" I have provided linked source with direct quotes that the five are "a part of the U.S." federal constitutional republic. I think. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:28, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

TheVirginiaHistorian, when you misrepresent sources and other editors, and present synthesis of sources, you encourage other editors to respond, extending the discussion. For example, I did not say "TFD requires statehood to be "a part of the U.S."" Your misrepresentation of my statements wastes time because it requires me to respond. Also, you misrepresent the dispute between Cuba and the US. The US claims that Puerto Rico is a separate state in free association with the US while Cuba claims that it is a colony. Neither claims that it is part of the US and in fact the US continues to assert that three of its unincorporated territories are non-self governing territories, which is the status that Cuba claims for Puerto Rico. You also misrepresent that organic legislation incorporates territories into the US when it only "organizes" territorial government. The fact that PR retains the right to self-determination is not an argument that it is part of the US but an argument against - states of the US have merged their right. The UN does not monitor Virginia and whether the federal government respects its right to independance. You continue to link to the article WP:MADEUP, which has nothing to do with the discussion and refer to "apartheid" and "judge made law", which are equally irrelevant. When one removes your inaccurate statements, there is nothing left. Going forward, you should stick to the discussion. TFD (talk) 05:50, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Again, no sources, more WP:personal attack. But I have a source. In Talk:United States, archive 43, TFD said 8:15 pm, 10 January 2013, "I hope the people of Puerto Rico choose either statehood or independence, so we can stop this silly discussion." That's as much as saying you are for one or the other. I make no misrepresentation on this or any other point. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:19, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

That is how you expand the amount of text devoted to the discussion. I have already provided extensive sourcing. You then ignore it and repeat the same or similar arguments. You have not even mentioned which claims you disagree with. Now you are attaching significance to an ironic comment I made. How does it say I am for one solution or another, and what significance does it have to your argument? TFD (talk) 14:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Both of you are amply demonstrating why I made the comment I did above... you guys are veering off into tangential, almost irrelevant, discussions and never getting at the real issue. TFD: are you actually arguing that Puerto Rico is not part of the United States? Virginia, are you actually arguing that definitions pulled out of court decisions, or versions of international law define the topic?

I honestly don't have a dog in this fight... so please take my comments for what they are. This discussion is going nowhere fast. If you want real resolution, back away from these insane arguments on minutiae. I can't imagine any other outside editor finds them compelling, on either side. Isn't, and this is the most important part, the goal here to make the best article for the reader possible? And if that means saying the U.S. is ..... and/or encompasses ... , isn't that ideal? I mean no offense here, and please take this within the spirit of which this entire discussion has been... but I think on this issue you guys are losing sight of the real issue, and getting entrenched.

It's not helpful, it's not going anywhere, and it's not relevant to the situation. The legal arguments make me cringe. It's missing the point. Let's talk about how best to make this helpful to the reader, and if there are places where a simple explanation wouldn't make it clear, let's talk about those. Maybe there are some real actual discrete disagreements here (aside from the overarching one), but if there are, they're entirely lost to everyone, and I've taken the time to read a lot of these discussions. If there are, can't we at least boil down some disagreements so we can identify the core argument? But can we please stop going around in circles? Shadowjams (talk) 15:59, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

My understanding is that the United States is defined by domestic and international law. Secondary sources that define the U.S. base their conclusions legislation, judgments, treaties and other legal sources. What sources should we use? TFD (talk) 16:39, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

• 1) The modern Supreme Court (as cited, quoted and linked) says the Congress can define the political extent of the U.S. 2) The primary source referenced by the Court is the Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA) in force. 3) The secondary source I used to interpret the INA was the State Department “Foreign Affarirs Manual” (FAM) (online unclassified, 1985) acquisistion of u.s. nationality Four are unequivocally a part of the U.S. "nation". "Outlying possessions of the United States" was restricted to American Samoa and Swains Island.” p.5. and several other sources as directly quoted, cited and linked. “Exclude territories” editors insist on quoting historical citations from a century ago in FAM as "inconsistent" with the current in force, dismissing the law in effect governing U.S. territories since 1985 because it was not always so.
• 1) All five U.S. organized territories are incorporated today, as the U.S. officially tells immigrants who would become U.S. citizens in Welcome ... a guide p.77, “The United States now consists of 50 states, the District …, the [five organized] territories”, and several other sources as directly quoted, cited and linked. “Exclude territories” editors answer a “pamphlet” for wannabe citizens is of no account. Citizenship is not recognized in international law as is common law nationality of the soil in their view. Citizenship is merely a statutory grant which may be withdrawn “at any time” as in the British Virgin Islands by Parliament. 2) But in U.S. constitutional practice, the Supreme Court has held citizenship “irrevocable” (cited, quoted, linked) and may not be compromised by Congress, and indeed the modern Court expands constitutional protections to territorial citizens beyond congressional organic acts. "Exclude" editors refuse to admit any U.S. history by statute or jurisprudence over the last fifty years, since 1962.
• Incorporated Territories in U.S. constitutional practice since 1805 do not have all the constitutional privileges and protections of states, although all five incorporated by congress today enjoy more that four previous territories of the twentieth century made states, Arizona, New Mexico, Alaska and Hawaii. For the modern territories, see GAO’s 1998 “U.S. Insular Areas: Application of the U.S. Constitution” , “’Fundamental’ Constitutional rights apply to all territories’, pp. 23. “Puerto Rico, American Samoa, and CNMI (N. Marianas) have internal self-government under locally-adopted constitutions.” For the 20th century less-equal citizens in territories that became states, and “separate and unequal” overseas territories, see Levinson and Sparrow’s anthology, and several others as directly quoted, cited and linked. "Exclude territories" editors object without alternative sources. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 01:47, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

You ignored my question whether the issue is a legal question or something else. Also, are your conclusions based on mainstream interpretations or are they personal opinion? TFD (talk) 06:28, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Part 1 answer to TFD query 01:28/06:28. For the U.S., the Supreme Court has ruled the extent of the country is a political question to be decided by Congress. This was stated a century ago in "Insular Cases" of judge-made fiat for temporary governance of alien peoples without republican traditions or English language. (See Lawson and Sloane reference suggested by TFD as cited, directly quoted and linked by me in earlier discussion).

_ _ In the modern era, Congress speaks comprehensively on the extent of U.S. territory in the Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA), as amended. The Court has ruled to extend constitutional protections to citizens in territories beyond congressional organic acts; the constitution does not follow the flag, it follows citizenship in the modern era, as it has for U.S. incorporated territories since 1805, as cited, quoted and linked in previous discussion. Constitution status of territories is also assessed in the GAO report linked in my last response, interpreting congressional organic acts together with judicial rulings currently then in force. Rights and privileges of incorporated territories have consistently expanded since 1952 to a level which is already described as constitutionally "equivalent to [incorporated] states" (Lawson and Sloane).

_ _ You asked earlier, how Iraq is not a U.S. incorporated territory by my reasoning, I will now answer, 1) they did not request incorporation in referendum as the Puerto Ricans to be a commonwealth and agree to the constitution under congressional organic law, 2) Iraqis were not U.S. citizens of the soil during occupation. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:10, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Part 2 answer to TFD query 01:28/06:28. My conclusions are based on mainstream interpretations from secondary sources, not my own, including 1) the U.S.G. interpretation of itself as found in secondary sources published by the GAO and the State Department, and 2) the modern U.S. interpretation by scholars published in law journals at Boston College and University of Pennsylvania, Federal Lawyer, and academic publication of constitutional historians and political scientists.

_ _ The U.S. is not an outlaw state by mainstream interpretation. That recognizes U.S. territories as a part of the U.S. and concede its right to describe itself by its own constitutional practice. From the Reisman-McDougal-Sloane reference suggested by TFD and cited, directly quoted and linked by me in previous discussion, p.120 notes Puerto Rican referenda November 1993 and December 1998 “failed to provide a consensus to change the status quo [U.S. commonwealth]." Receiving 2-4% each time then, and again in 2012, "independence" is a contemporary wp:fringe.

_ _ The Reisman piece continues, most of the world appears “to view [Puerto Rico's] situation as ‘acceptable’, or to view whatever problems may exist there as essentially benign.” The concluding point is the general response in the U.N. -- elites and majority -- see U.S.-PR commonwealth as “adequate under contemporary law". “Only a small minority appears to view the relationship as unlawful per se.” That view would be wp:fringe, unlike the mainstream interpretations cited by scholarly sources suggested by TFD which do not re-echo 1911, but speak to the contemporary. Wikipedia should not be used to right great wrongs suffered a century ago.

_ _ Lest there be any misunderstanding, they most certainly did harm and I protest against the "separate and unequal" measures of the past as unjust. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:06, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, regretfully it appears that my plea above is not going to make any difference. As a matter of practicality, I think I agree with Virginia Historian mostly in terms of the scope of the term "United States." TFD seems to have some obsession with citizenship as a defining characteristic of national definitions, which is obviously incorrect. But all of that is really besides the point... almost none of that is relevant to this, at least given how much you guys have delved into this. Virginian historian... you need to find a way to be more concise on wikipedia. The vast majority of what you write is irrelevant, and your indentation style is atypical to say the least. If only superficial, it turns people off, makes them not want to engage.

More to the point, a doctrinal obsession with legal arguments void of their context, on what is essentially a cultural issue (and also, I can cherry pick you definitions out of the U.S. Code all day... they've already been listed... both are right... depending on the context) is missing the whole point.

But I've already said most of this. Anyway, if this continues I have zero expectation you two will come to a compromise, and I certainly don't think any compromise that comes out of that discussion as it is now is worth applying to any other articles. I'm frankly disappointed at what could have been a reasonable discussion and conclusion. I don't want to sound defeatist, but rather to have this be a wakeup call of sorts. I tend to flirt in and out of content disputes like this, so I'm often coming into things as an outsider, although I usually find topics that I have some tangential knowledge of. My meager suggestion is to step back and look at this topic as though you'd just stumbled upon it, and wonder what it means. Ask a spouse, coworker, or friend what their first impression is. That can often be very telling. Best of luck. Shadowjams (talk) 20:48, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I asked what sources, if not legal sources, we should use. BTW, I have never said that citizenship is a "defining characteristic of national definitions". TheVirginiaHistorian argued that by extending citizenship to four of the territories they became incorporated. My position has always been that the extention of citizenship does not extend the boundaries of the nation. How did you conclude I was obsessed with this argument? TFD (talk) 02:22, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

If I misunderstood your argument I'm sorry. The central idea is that citizenship doesn't have much to do with the definition of national statehood. More specifically, any one legal touchstone for the scope of a national border is probably going to miss the bigger picture. Just as if one were to look at the tax code and conclude that because it treats the territories differently than the states + dc, that's conclusive. Same goes for citizenship. Even things like sovereignty bring up issues... the U.S. and Canada have a piece of rock in the north Atlantic they're still not resolved about. All of those things can be talked about at length, but at the end of the day the simple question, "what is the U.S." is answered in the big context of all of that, not by getting into SCOTUS caselaw from the early 20th century. It's the focus on these, ultimately minor details that bothers me, and I think is part of the problem with the discussion right now. Shadowjams (talk) 07:01, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Historical overview with fewer minor details. In U.S. constitutional practice for territories acquired after the Treaty of Paris 1783, the “legacy of the Northwest Territories” applied uniformly, although inordinately (unjustly) delayed in the case of Spanish-speaking Arizona and New Mexico. That legacy was NOT extended to the territorial empire acquired in the 1890s from Spain, Germany and Denmark, until a) the onset of the Cold War competition over the meaning of ‘democracy’, and b) the scrutiny of the United Nations advocating for colonial peoples.

Congress of the 1930s had begun extending the New Deal economic assistance to territories as a part of the U.S. In the 1950s, after the death of former U.S. Philippine governor, president, chief justice Howard Taft, congress began belatedly to extend political freedoms and local governance modeled after the “legacy of the Northwest Territories”. Fundamental change in American political outlook requires 30-40 years of persistent majorities to effect change; by the 1960s the U.S. territories began to look like the historically incorporated territory preparing for statehood.

”Incorporation” in the U.S. constitutional practice is not merely ‘citizenship’ alone conferred by governing state fiat as was done at Puerto Rico about WWI. Incorporation of territories over the last half-century is a mutual interplay between congress and local populations in their legislature, convention and referendum. The “legacy of the Northwest Territories involves allegiance to the constitution and supremacy of congress, republican three-branch government, submitting to an Article III federal district court, electing a territorial Member of Congress, which N. Marianas did not agree to do until 1985.

Today the U.S. federal republic includes 50 states, a federal district and five organized territories. Its possessions include an additional nine uninhabited places. Its jurisdiction extends variably to extra-territorial embassies, military bases, and cemeteries. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:08, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I did not present 100 year cases in support of my position, but rather presented current secondary sources that explain the boundaries of the U.S. under domestic and international law. For example, "Study of W. Michael Reisman, Myers S. McDougal Professor of International Law, Yale Law School and Robert D. Sloane, Associate Professor of Law, Boston University School of Law", U.S. Congress, 2006, pp. 120, 136, 149ff.[1] According to that report, it is settled domestic law that the territories of the United States can only become part of the U.S. if Congress incorporates them through legislation. It also says that is the position of the executive and congress, and international law, accepted by the United Nations. For example, "under international law, the United Nations views Puerto Rico as "distinct." The accomodation reached in 1953 [between the U.S. and Puerto Rio] stressed Puerto Rico's national entity separate and distinct from the United States." That situtation differs from the North American rock that is disputed territory. I also presented the same writers' article in the Boston Law Review.[2] The CIA factbook, the Puerto Rico website and other tertiary websites also confirm the separate status.

Citizenship does not determine whether a territory is part of the U.S. Again, that was the TheVirginiaHistorian's argument. My only observation was that under the U.S. constititution, persons born in and under the jurisdiction of the U.S. are citizens, while persons born in territories are only citizens if legislation provides for it. Obviously other provisions of the constitution do not extend into unicorporated territories, except through legislation.

The sources I provided did however say that current law is based on the 200 year old constitution, the 100 year old insular cases and 50 year old treaties. Does that make them invalid and if so what type of sources should one use?

OTOH, TheVirginiaHistorian argues above that the although the current territories were not part of the U.S. before the Cold War that successive expansion of their autonomy has incorporated them into the U.S. I do not find that argument compelling, and would expect secondary sources that supported it. But again, I would appreciate any guidance if I am on the wrong track.

TFD (talk) 04:59, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

“If Congress incorporates them through legislation.” That is done by organic law establishing republican government, and the population accepting U.S. citizenship, the constitution and congressional supremacy. FTD claims since some organic acts have not incorporated territories, none can ever do so; mistakenly, as they can assign three stages: a) direct federal administration in the modern era by Interior, NASA, and Army, b) unincorporated appointed governance (none in the last 50 years), and c) incorporated territory with republican government and possible citizenship.

Puerto Rico’s identity is distinct and separate from that of the United States as is every incorporated state. Lawson and Sparrow’s scholarly observation, backed up by secondary GAO constitutional status report for the territories. The five organized territories today are locally autonomous and constitutionally equivalent to incorporated states. But U.S.G. has NEVER granted territories before admission ALL the constitutional rights and privileges of states. This modern U.S. territorial status is found acceptable in the U.N. majority for the Puerto Rican case according to the Reisman-McDougal-Sloane article; only a small minority find it internationally unlawful. That is supported in the Lawson and Sloane article, modern PR in 2005 meets the three international criteria of “self-determination”. FTD concludes that a modern federal system cannot be a union; mistakenly. INA statute has Samoa the last outlying territory as of 1985, the other major four are a part of the modern U.S.

Unincorporated territories have been administered by appointed governors without resident citizens. The “legacy of the Northwest Territories” is citizenship, republican government, populace acceptance of the Constitution and rule by congress, federal courts and representation in congress. That legacy of incorporated territory is met by Congress in Puerto Rico INCREASINGLY since 1952, in Lawson and Sloane to incorporated state equivalence 2005, and confirmed in 2007 then on appeal by federal courts “upheld” on Puerto Rican incorporation equivalent to a state constitutionally and “upheld” as a state at law (only federal reimbursement formula remanded).

No direct quote says modern U.S. territories are “separate from” the U.S., or that their citizens are second-class as were their populations in 100-year old case law of tertiary references, that requires editor synthesis. At CIA Factbook under “U.S. Government” all listings are alike, incorporated states and territories, congress and president, confusing places with governors and places with mayors, listing the branches Article II, I, III. Hardly scholarly for U.S., but it has useful weekly international data updates. The right track is GAO constitutional status of territories (constitutionally equivalent to states), State interpretation of INA statute (incorporation of territories into the nation), Levinson and Sparrow (historical perspective of territorial incorporation), Lawson and Sloane (international law of achieved population self-determination and equivalence to incorporated states). TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:51, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Just a heads up!

Just to let you know, there is somebody (an I.P. user) going around Wikipedia user talk pages, vandalizing them under your name. Just letting you know ahead of time so you can do something about it. Cheers, best regards. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 04:51, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP. Graham87 05:04, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the heads up. I'm not sure who it was since I haven't vandal patrolled in a week or two, seems odd. Shadowjams (talk) 06:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Adminship

Hi Shadowjams! I've noticed you around, and I think you would be a very strong candidate for adminship. Frankly, I'm surprised you haven't run before. Would you be interested doing an RfA? Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{♪ talk ♪} 05:49, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I am, and I'm not sure I can convey my sincerity in ascii, but I'm really deeply flattered that you would suggest this. The bulk of what I do is vandalism patrol and basic awb work, with the occasional flirtation with project issues like the US issue above. I also regularly edit the reference desk. With the exception of the reference desk, which is a close, although sometimes rambunctious community of good editors, there's not a lot of recognition that comes from this kind of work.

So that you noticed anything I did, I'm really flattered.

As far as adminship goes, I have to decline right now. I've been very busy professionally lately, with some stress that comes with it; that means I've made edits where I'm not proud of my tone. it also means that I'm busy, and will be for the near future. Wikipedia has been a nice distraction during much of this.

I also say this because I have been and remain impressed with the admins that regularly review AIV. They are few, but the ones that are there are really good, and they have a good practical understanding of how vandalism works, and I think they trust the regular patrollers whose names they recognize at AIV. I tend to edit at random hours anyway, so I have an idea of the cross section of admins that patrol it. If any of them were to edit less we might have problems, but in my experience we've been really lucky as it is now.

So, maybe in the future adminship is something I might care about, but I can't right now. But thank you so much for your message, it certainly has lightened my week. If you have any future comments for me, good or bad, please do not hesitate at all to let me know. Shadowjams (talk) 12:05, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. I think more people notice your work around the project that you might think - personally, I have been familiar with your username for a good long while now. I can't say I'm not disappointed that you don't want to run now, but I quite understand your decision. RfA and adminship can indeed be stressful, and if you wouldn't feel comfortable with that stress then holding off on adminship might be the best move. (Having said that, though, I find the amount of stress depends a great deal on what you do as an admin, rather than just having the bit.) If you ever feel like running in the future, just ask and I'll get the ball rolling. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{♪ talk ♪} 23:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Lightning page revisions

Hello, I see you had interest in this page recently, so I wanted to invite you to take part in the major overhaul I have been working on. Thanks for your interest. Borealdreams (talk) 00:09, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

hyerotaku

I have closed his questions and started a thread on talk. μηδείς (talk) 16:53, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User talk:Sotonvliverpool

User talk:Sotonvliverpool, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Sotonvliverpool and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User talk:Sotonvliverpool during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. The Banner talk 10:42, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User talk:Liverpoolvmancity

User talk:Liverpoolvmancity, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Liverpoolvmancity and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User talk:Liverpoolvmancity during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. The Banner talk 10:42, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

General of the Armies

Just letting you know that I undid your Huggle edit on General_of_the_Armies, as it's quite clear by the comments in the article, including right next to the date, and discussion on the talk pages that the date should stay 1976, not 1776. Search4Lancer (talk) 08:32, 24 March 2013 (UTC)