Talk:United States/Requested move sub-discussion

• Comment Since I started this, I might as well contribute to the overall argument. United States is merely a bland term that can mean so many different things depending on where you live. Adding the word America (which, as dewdinblue said, is given in official documents of the USA) locates where it is in the world.Red Wiki 03:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

  I replaced your emboldened "Support" marker with "Comment" above. You're welcome to participate in the discussion, but you cannot support yourself or be counted twice (not that this is a majority vote).
  I also linked your signatures, as instructed at Wikipedia:Signatures#Links. Given the fact that you are not signing your actual account name (Valkyrie Red), this is especially important. —David Levy 03:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

  An unnecessary and impolite action IMO. While it's generally assumed that a proposer does support the nomination, it's not always true, so some nominators cast a "vote" in addition. Just so long as they make it clear that they are also the nominator (as here), this is sometimes helpful to the closing admin, and never a problem. Andrewa (talk) 04:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

  It's a problem when someone mistakenly believes that a discussion is a majority vote in which the numbers of "support" and "oppose" ballots will be counted to determine a winner. What you view as impoliteness was my attempt to assist an editor who has continually demonstrated difficulty understanding our procedures. —David Levy 04:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

  FYI, Red Wiki is breathtakingly ignorant, and, probably (I hope, for his or her sake) a minor. No intelligent well-informed English-speaking adult, let alone one with a bachelor's degree from a decent university, would make the astonishing statement that U.S. official documents use the term "United States of America." The only such document where I regularly see the term used in full is on my passport, and I don't practice international law, so I only need to look at that once a year on average (such as on my recent trip to Sydney where I took a few more photos for Wikipedia). As a practicing lawyer, I can say with absolute certainty that the vast majority of U.S. official documents simply refer to the United States. Nearly all U.S. laws and regulations simply refer to the United States. The few exceptions are documents relevant to foreign affairs, like passports and international treaties. --Coolcaesar (talk) 04:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

  Red Wiki may well be ignorant of many things, and this is no crime here. However, personal attacks are. Suggest you both cool it a bit. Even better, maybe apologise. Andrewa (talk) 04:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

  Are you asserting that I've committed a personal attack? Valkyrie Red actually posted a thank-you note on my talk page in response to the message in question. —David Levy 05:06, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

  I'm pretty sure Andrewa was referring to Coolcaesar's abhorrent and unhelpful comments. SnottyWong talk 13:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

  The policy at Wikipedia:No personal attacks is far broader than many realise. The nutshell reads Comment on content, not on the contributor. Yes, Coolcaesar is a blatant offender. I'd suggest David Levy is getting needlessly personal as well, first with a relative newbie, and now with me. Neither of us want a fight. Please stick to the issues.

  The apology I think David should consider is for the way he changed another contributor's signed posting. He's a relatively experienced contributor, and it would be a shame if Red Wiki assumed that he's setting a good example there and followed it. Just a suggestion. It's also a shame that he and others have offered so little criticism of Coolcaesar IMO. Again, they're not setting a very good example, and it would be a shame if others followed it. Andrewa (talk) 14:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

  1. I'm baffled as to how I'm "getting needlessly personal as well, first with a relative newbie, and now with [you]." I've commented on nothing other than contributions, and I can't imagine what comments you regard as discourteous or personal in nature.
  2. I remain equally baffled as to why you've condemned a post in which I assisted Valkyrie Red by explaining a couple of Wikipedia practices that he/she misunderstood (for which he/she thanked me on my talk page).
  3. There is absolutely nothing improper or unusual about refactoring another user's message to correct its formatting (without performing any substantial alterations).
  4. In a single message, you just criticised me for "getting needlessly personal" and for "offer[ing] so little criticism" of another editor. —David Levy 15:20, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

  I inquired because Andrewa addressed "you both" in a thread in which Coolcaesar and I were the only other participants (after deeming my involvement "unnecessary and impolite"). Andrewa has now confirmed that he was referring to Coolcaesar and me. —David Levy 15:20, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I think we should give this a rest. I'll reply to these if you like, but I doubt either of us will change our opinions as to whether your changing a vote to a comment above was a good thing. IMO best now to leave others to read the relevant policies procedures etc and move on. Andrewa (talk) 15:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome to reply (or not reply) as you deem appropriate. If you do reply, I'd appreciate an explanation of why you regard the edit in question as substantial and improper. —David Levy 16:01, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

You raised this again below, and I heve replied there. Andrewa (talk) 21:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment- I would first like to thank those that supported me in the previous argument above. Secondly, I would like to apologize for what appeared to be confusing in this session.Red Wiki 16:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valkyrie Red (talk • contribs)

In the hope of reducing confuson, and more for the benefit of other relative newbies who may read this page than for you, let me summarise my concerns with this discussion:

1. You were quite right to raise this RM. Perhaps a more experienced editor would have checked the history and archives more thoroughly first and decided not to, but we are all students here. You did the right thing.

2. You were quite entitled to vote after raising it. It wasn't necessary but it wasn't wrong either. You made it quite clear that you were the proposer, and again, you did the right thing.

3. Much of the criticism you have received appears to be in ignorance of the relevant procedures and policies. This unfortunately is not uncommon here or anywhere else in human society. Those keenest to quote the rules are often also the worst at violating them.

4. In particular, some of the criticism you have received is in gross violation of the Wikipedia policy of no personal attacks. Other posts, while not in gross violation, are certainly not in the spirit of this key policy. Comment on the content, not on the contributor. Just as an example, it would be far better to say that arguments were poor rather than to comment on people who are saying... below.

Please set up your signature so you can just use ~~~~ to sign your talk page posts (drop me a line if you need help with this), and happy editing! Andrewa (talk) 17:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

It isn't unheard-of for someone to type something along the lines of "Support, as nominator" when creating a listing. Assuming that he/she has adequately explained his/her position, this serves no purpose other than to assist a closing administer in quickly counting the number of "support" and "oppose" opinions (hopefully in conjunction with many other elements properly used to gauge consensus or the lack thereof).

It is not customary for the lister to return at a later point and add a "support" vote to the bottom of the section (while plainly stating that his/her intention is merely to take part in the discussion), and I don't know why you're telling Valkyrie Red otherwise.

For some reason, you apparently regard my intervention as both extraordinary and hostile. It was neither. Superficial refactoring of other users' posts (in a manner not altering their substantial content) to conform to established formatting is a common and widely accepted practice. I even took the time to include a notation of the superficial change, thereby explaining to Valkyrie Red that he/she could participate in the discussion without prefacing his/her comments with "support" (which I suspect he/she otherwise would be doing every time) and could instead use the "comment" label (as he/she has correctly done since). This was a sincere effort to provide kind assistance to an inexperienced editor, which appears to have been both successful and appreciated. I'm baffled as to why you regard it as unusual or harmful, let alone as a rude attack warranting continual repudiation. —David Levy 20:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

We may need to agree to disagree on this point. Agree that superficial refactoring of another's signed comment is sometimes good, and acceptable, but I wouldn't have called it common. Disagree that changing a vote to a comment is superficial refactoring. Disagree that it was foreseeable and likely that they would otherwise have prefaced their further comments by support.

Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Others' comments lists sixteen examples of permissable changes to another's comments. None covers this case so far as I can see. It prefaces these examples with The basic rule -- with some specific exceptions outlined below -- is, that you should not strike out or delete the comments of other editors without their permission.

Obviously, in the same circumstances, you'd do the same thing again. I think that's a shame, but can't see a lot to do about it. I do however hope that others who might otherwise have followed your example here will read my comments and think twice. Andrewa (talk) 21:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

1. How do you perceive the significance of "changing a vote to a comment" (as you described it)? What distinction are you drawing? How is the resultant text materially different? What harm do you believe was caused?

2. I did not "strike out or delete" the comment. I corrected its formatting as a favor to its author.

3. Yes, I would do the same thing again. In my view, it's a shame that you perceive an innocuous/helpful formatting correction as an egregious infraction worthy of censure (on behalf of an editor who came to my talk page to thank me). —David Levy 21:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

1. The significance is minimal. That's the whole point. Your change was completely unnecessary, and misleading to others, who would be justified in assuming that there was something seriously wrong with the vote you changed.

2. Agree. A misguided one IMO. The intention of the guideline is clear.

3. Noted. Now can we move on? Andrewa (talk) 22:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

1. Upon reading the assertion that replacing a one-word label (in accordance with our standard formatting) and politely explaining this minor tweak to the author was "misleading to others, who would be justified in assuming that there was something seriously wrong with the vote [I] changed," I've gone from baffled to utterly flabbergasted.

It was a minor formatting error. I performed a minor edit to correct it, and even took the time to explicitly note this. Now we're having a major debate, and I don't know why.

2. I remain perplexed as to the relevance of the quoted wording, as I did not "strike out or delete" the comment.

Indeed, the guideline's intention (preventing users from substantially altering others' talk page posts in the absence of extraordinary circumstances) is clear. That's why I did nothing of the sort. You appear to acknowledge above that the difference is not substantial, so I don't understand the basis of your argument.

3. That might be best, as it's clear that you and I have radically disparate views of how Wikipedia operates. —David Levy 22:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The only disagreement seems to be that you feel that it was a minor formatting error to label the line Support, while I feel it was not an error at all. All our differences seem to stem from this disagreement. If it had been an error, then certainly you were entitled to point it out, and if you felt it was sufficiently important, even to correct it. But it wasn't an error, and it wasn't a problem. You have quoted no policy, guideline or procedure to support your action in changing the signed comment of another user. Even if on this occasion the user was not offended, it is not to be encouraged. Andrewa (talk) 01:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

If you honestly believe that it's a normal practice for the nominator to rejoin the ongoing debate by casting a "support" vote at the bottom, I can't help you.

Again, Valkyrie Red plainly stated that he/she merely wanted to participate in the discussion, so I don't understand why you regard the emboldened "support" label as anything other a minor error stemming from an inexperienced editor's emulation of existing formatting. I wanted to make it clear to Valkyrie Red that this is an open discussion (not a majority vote) in which he/she is welcome to participate without being confined to a ballot-like format. I struggle to understand your radically disparate view of the situation (and understand if you feel the same about mine), but I struggle even more to understand the zeal with which you've continually chastised my actions (which you've acknowledged were minor and surely must realize were performed in good faith). In the five years since I began editing Wikipedia, I've never before encountered such a response. (And yes, I realize that you've been here even longer.)

I have no doubt that your above replies will be quite successful at discouraging the edits that you deem so unconscionable. People will think twice before attempting to help fellow editors, lest they be taken to task by an administrator demanding that they "[quote a] policy, guideline or procedure to support" every action (no matter how minor), despite no assertion that a substantial change occurred (let alone evidence that it caused any sort of harm). —David Levy 03:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

David was clearly acting with only the best of intentions, and the poster even thanked him for his very minor changes, which didn't seem at all harmful to me--they seemed quite sensible, in fact. Valkyrie Red noted in his comment that he was merely contributing to the argument further, as his vote had already been cast when he created the move request. I'm just as perplexed as David at your responses here. -CapitalQ (talk) 03:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't doubt David's intentions. You might like to look at [1] but please, don't turn that vote into a comment too. It's unnecessary, and in view of the fact that it's unnecessary, IMO it's both impolite and contrary to Wikipedia guidelines.

But I will take your comment on board. Perhaps there's a rough consensus that such edits are OK, in which case of course I'll abide by this decision, and recommend that it be documented somewhere (unless it already is and I've missed it). Andrewa (talk) 13:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I haven't advocated the indiscriminate replacement of "support" with "comment" in all messages posted by nominators. Valkyrie Red has given every indication that he/she does not understand our practices (and on the topic of editing others' posts, you might want to see this), is not signing his/her username, and conveyed that his/her intention was to comment. Conversely, Hebel's intention appears to have been to expand the original (succinct) rationale, and to my knowledge, he/she has not demonstrated misunderstanding beyond incorrect use of the "minor edit" checkbox. —David Levy 14:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

You have claimed It is not customary for the lister to return at a later point and add a "support" vote to the bottom of the section (while plainly stating that his/her intention is merely to take part in the discussion), and I don't know why you're telling Valkyrie Red otherwise. The reason I'm telling Valkyrie Red otherwise is simply that it's false. There's no reason not to, and many do, and they're quite entitled to do so. Further comments should of course be labelled as comments if any label is necessary. Andrewa (talk) 15:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

1. You appear to be ignoring the "while plainly stating that his/her intention is merely to take part in the discussion" element. Again, I'm not claiming that a nominator shouldn't use the "support" label under any circumstance. I'm saying that said label did not accurately reflect Valkyrie Red's clear intent (and the contextual meaning of his/her message).

2. You note above that "further comments should of course be labelled as comments if any label is necessary." Why is that? What, in your assessment, is this label's purpose? —David Levy 15:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm ignoring that part of it. I can't see it has any relevance. The underlying principle is simply, don't alter other people's posts needlessly. Andrewa (talk) 22:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

1. You're ignoring the part about Valkyrie Red's message being incongruous with its label. You might disagree with this assessment, but it's quite relevant.

2. I agree that one shouldn't edit someone's post needlessly. I believe that Valkyrie Red needed help. You might not think so, but you know perfectly well that I do.

3. Please answer my questions. (You note above that "further comments should of course be labelled as comments if any label is necessary." Why is that? What, in your assessment, is this label's purpose?) —David Levy 23:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that removing the strikeout was probably the wrong thing to do. Or I think that's what you're saying about editing other's posts, but perhaps I should check... do you think it was a mistake, too? Why? Andrewa (talk) 15:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I regard the edit in question as inappropriate (hence my reversion) because it substantially altered the text's meaning in a manner contradicting its author's intent. —David Levy 15:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree. So, you'd encourage others (person two, say) to make changes to another person's signed post (person one) just so long as it is an improvement (in the opinion of person two) and doesn't substantially... (alter)... the text's meaning in a manner contradicting its author's intent (again in the opinion of person two)? Andrewa (talk) 22:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

No, you've reverse-engineered my post in an illogical manner. (If I state that I dislike a car because it's old, rusty and noisy, it doesn't mean that I like any car lacking that combination of attributes.)

I condone formatting corrections. You might not believe that this accurately describes my edit, but you know perfectly well that I do. —David Levy 23:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

OK. My problem with this is that formatting corrections here seems to include changing a valid vote to a comment. Or is this again mistating your position? Andrewa (talk) 15:34, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what distinction you're drawing, perhaps because you refuse to answer my pertinent questions. For the third time:

You note above that "further comments should of course be labelled as comments if any label is necessary." Why is that? What, in your assessment, is this label's purpose? —David Levy 16:19, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

<-Reseting offset<- Hmmm, you don't seem to have answered my question either. Further comments afer a vote should be labeled comment if any label is necessary because there are only three labels, comment, support and oppose (wIth a few variations which need not concern us here), and the other two... really, need I go on? The label's purpose is to make it easier to identify and follow the strings of the discusion and the positions of the participants. Is that clearer? I thought it was too obvious to need to be spelled out, frankly, but I'm quite happy to if it helps. Andrewa (talk) 20:03, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Your belief that "it was too obvious to need to be spelled out" (which should have been eliminated when I posted the questions for the second time and requested that you "please answer" them) appears to stem from a misunderstanding of what I'm asking.

As noted above, I haven't answered your question because I don't know what distinction you're drawing between "a valid vote" and "a comment," and the above response hasn't helped me. All that you've written boils down to "those are the terms that we use, and they serve to identify the posts' nature." I'll try being more specific.

What, in your view, is the difference between "a valid vote" and "a comment"? Why is it inappropriate for someone to continually label his/her comments "support"/"oppose"? —David Levy 22:04, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid it doesn't surprise me at all that the answer hasn't helped, and I'm afraid that I think the problem was the question. And I doubt these are any better. But I'll try.

A vote is labelled support or oppose (or variants that I don't think we need to try to list, such as support both or weak oppose). There are probably several reasons that it could be invalid, but the only one that comes immediately to mind is that the contributor has voted already, and I think it's the only one that's important in this discussion. This is inappropriate because it defeats the purpose of the labels, and for this reason it is contrary to well established practice. I think that in this context anything that is not a vote is a comment, I could be wrong here but I can't think of any other significant possibility.

I'm reluctantly concluding that the only point of these hair-splitting questions of yours is you're trying to trip me up, because you don't like my opinion that one of your edits was unhelpful. What will that prove?

IMO your needless edit to another's signed post set a very bad example. A following edit by the victim of your disputed edit, removng the strikeout from a third party's post, which you then (rightly) reverted, was even worse, but it demonstrates the dangers of the precedent you set. You disagree. Fair enough. Let's move on. Andrewa (talk) 22:57, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

You previously cited WP:ATTACK, and I'll remind you of WP:AGF. I assure you that my questions reflect a sincere attempt to better understand your position, not to "trip [you] up."

The one thing that you haven't explicitly stated above (and which I referred to earlier in the discussion) is that "assuming that [a user] has adequately explained his/her position, [the "support"/"oppose" label] serves no purpose other than to assist a closing administer in quickly counting the number of "support" and "oppose" opinions (hopefully in conjunction with many other elements properly used to gauge consensus or the lack thereof)."

So yes, if "the contributor has voted already," it interferes with this process. But does this render the statement of support/opposition "invalid"? No, of course not. These discussions are not majority votes, and a message not labeled "support"/"oppose" can carry as much or more weight than one that is.

Valkyrie Red had "voted already," and his/her message led me to believe that he/she either didn't realize that it was okay to participate in the discussion without using a "support"/"oppose" label or mistakenly believed that doing so would add extra weight to a comment (essentially "supporting" oneself). Conversely, in the example that you cited, Hebel's intention appears to have been to supply a detailed rationale (something not accomplished via his/her succinct nomination).

I have difficulty responding to the phrase "changing a valid vote to a comment" because it appears to imply that this is some sort of demotion, which simply isn't so. (Perhaps this disparity between our perceptions is the main source of our disagreement.) Emboldened "support"/"oppose" labels merely enable an easier head count (and nothing more), which is only one consideration in gauging consensus (or the lack thereof). Valkyrie Red's head already was accounted for, so my edit had absolutely no effect on the post's validity or weight. It merely tidied the discussion's formatting and assisted Valkyrie Red in understanding our procedures.

On that note, I'll point out that you dismissed my suggestion that I inspired Valkyrie Red to label subsequent posts "Comment," but you're eager to blame his/her removal of another user's strikeout on "the precedent [I] set." This is despite the fact that my edit was explicitly noted and clearly meant to reflect the author's intent (regardless of whether you agree with this assessment). —David Levy 06:19, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Disagree with much of this. You commented at the time you cannot support yourself or be counted twice in explanation of your changing support to comment. This seems to indicate that you were making some sort of demotion to the post in question, wrongly believing that otherwise there was a risk that VR would be accorded two votes, or at least be seen to be attempting a second vote.

It's unlikely that this would assist VR in understanding the procedures, since in fact and contrary to your claim it's quite normal but optional for the proposer to explicitly support a proposal, and not unusual for this to happen some time after discussion starts. I have given a recent example above.

I expect that VR's removal of the strikeout was also meant to reflect the author's intent. That didn't excuse it. Andrewa (talk) 10:30, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

1. Why did you quote only the middle of the sentence (and not the beginning and end, both of which stressed that Valkyrie Red's participation was nonetheless valued)? For the record, here's the entire sentence (with the omitted segments newly emboldened):

You're welcome to participate in the discussion, but you cannot support yourself or be counted twice (not that this is a majority vote).

As I noted above, I was concerned that Valkyrie Red had mistaken the discussion for a majority vote in which comments required "support"/"oppose" labels or including them would add extra weight to a comment (essentially "supporting" oneself). My point was that the label did not affect the comment's weight, not that it did. Where are you seeing a contradiction?

2. I addressed your "recent example" in the message to which you just replied (and an earlier post). You might disagree with my assessment, but I don't know why you cited your example as though I've ignored it.

3. How was the removal of the strikeout meant to reflect the author's intent? The author clearly intended to strike the comment. —David Levy 11:06, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I quoted only the part that was relevent to the point I was making, which was that you were making some sort of demotion, contrary to what you subsequently claimed. The longer quotation you prefer equally supports this, just not nearly so clearly, as irrelevant material is included.

Disagree (obviously) that the longer quotation changes anything. The conclusion was that otherwise there was a risk that VR would be accorded two votes, or at least be seen to be attempting a second vote. We can split hairs and say second vote in a non-numerical poll, but does that really make it any clearer? Vote is the word we use here, rightly or wrongly. Agree that it's an important point that the poll is not decided on a simple majority, but is instead a mechanism for attempting to reach consensus.

Your belief that the change to the label was insignificant is noted again. But you can't have it both ways. If this change was important, as your comment at the time suggests, then it shouldn't have been made. If this change was unimportant, as much of your subsequent argument suggests, then it shouldn't have been made. Perhaps you might decide whether or not this change was important, and we can then at least restrict any further discussion to this line of thought?

Also noted again that you have rejected my counter example to your claim that it was not normal practice for the nominator to explicitly vote after dsicussion had started. I could of course provide many other examples, but what's the point?

You'd have to ask VR exactly what his intention was, but I'd suggest not pressing the point. I'm just assuming good faith. People do make mistakes. Andrewa (talk) 18:54, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

1. You quoted me out of context in a manner that distorted the message. I'm not alleging that this was intentional, but it was was the end result.

Again, my point was that no such added weight existed in the first place, not that I was removing it. This is considerably less clear when you omit the parts about Valkyrie Red's participation being welcome (i.e. valid) and the discussion not being a majority vote (the only scenario in which such a label change would constitute a demotion).

2. No, my point was that there was no such thing as "casting two votes". To be clear, I'm not quibbling over the use of the term "vote," which is quite correct (as I've noted on many occasions in response to the claim that so-and-so Wikipedia discussion is "not a vote"). But it's true that these discussions aren't majority votes in which a numerical tally determines the outcome.

I don't believe that Valkyrie Red intended to do anything dishonest or improper. As I've noted repeatedly, I believe that he/she honestly misunderstood what was expected.

3. I don't believe that the act of changing the label was "insignificant"; it had no effect on the message's meaning, but it served to tidy the formatting and illustrate it for Valkyrie Red. Whether this was "important" is relative. In the grand scheme of things, I wouldn't refer to the move debate as "important," but that doesn't mean that it isn't worthwhile.

4. Yet again, you're ignoring the "while plainly stating that his/her intention is merely to take part in the discussion" wording. You've explained that you're doing so because you regard it as irrelevant (a frequent determination on your part, evidently), but to omit it is to misstate my claim (regardless of whether you perceive that portion of my claim as substantive).

5. Likewise, I'm assuming good faith (on Valkyrie Red's part and yours). —David Levy 21:14, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

David's willingness to assume good faith on your part is quite generous. Having just caught up with the above, it isn't something that I'm willing to do at this point. Good grief. -CapitalQ (talk) 21:28, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

In that you are the second uninvolved editor to come in on David's side, and none on mine, I think I should accept that as a rough consensus that David's original edit was legitimate. Thanks for the contribution, and let's all move on. Andrewa (talk) 03:05, 27 December 2009 (UTC)