User talk:Buzity

Puerto Rico referendum edits
Hi. I recently undid one of your edits to the article on the Puerto Rican status referendum, 2012 saying there were "grammar/syntax problems". You made the same changes again and wrote to "read the quotes carefully" cause that's what the sources said. Just wanted to clarify the reasons why I undid the edits and why they have grammar/syntax problems. First, your edit reads:


 * "urging him to begin legislation in favor of the statehood of Puerto Rico, in light of its win in the referendum."

and your edit reads...


 * "urging him to begin legislation in favor of resolved the political status of Puerto Rico issue, in light of the plebiscite results rejecting the continuation of the current territorial political status and the victory of the admission as a state of the union among the available non-territorial status options."

First, the sentence is too long. It is what it's called a "run-on sentence". Second, the word "resolved" is in past tense, which shouldn't be the case. In any case, it should read "resolving". Third, the word "issue" at the end of the sentence should be taken out cause it shouldn't read "political status of Puerto Rico issue", but "the issue of the political status of Puerto Rico". Then again, it would be redundant and it could be left as just "resolving the political status of Puerto Rico". The final part of the sentence isn't needed because it's just restating and repeating what is already inferred in the article about the consequences of the results. There is no need to repeat them. That's why instead of saying, for example, "the victory of the admission as a state of the union", we can just refer to the win of statehood. I hope you understand the reason I made the edits. Still, I will incorporate some of the changes you made, though. Thief12 (talk) 14:01, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Stop
If you don't stop just inserting your "consensus proposals" into the article, I'm going to have to involve an administrator. Until they are agreed to, your proposals for major change must be kept to the talk page because a discussion is ongoing. Doing otherwise is rude as it shows no regard for the other editors who are discussing the matter with you in good faith. It is also disruptive editing, which can bring along with it a block. -Rrius (talk) 03:21, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * 98 % of the update was your proposal with a minor update of other editor, including the official language of the 3 President's Task Force on Puerto Rico's Status reports and add some wikilinks! I am discussing the matter with you in good faith; please help me to reach an agreement at the earliest convenience! --Buzity (talk) 04:17, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * First of all, none of that justifies your actions. You have repeatedly tried to insert your proposals into the article despite the fact that a discussion is ongoing. Anyway, I've responded at the talk page. The links are unnecessary. And what you've done about the task force is make an accurate sentence inaccurate. You didn't "include the official language" of the three reports. What you did was make it sound as though all three reports made the exact recommendation set out in the immediately preceding sentence. There is no support for that. There is also no reason for expanding the explanation of the task force. Multiple editors have told you that this language shouldn't be too long. You refuse to listen. If you want to agree to put forward my proposal for a straw poll, that's fine. I do not and will not agree to your edited version of it. It makes it less clear, grammatically incorrect, and inaccurate. The ball is in your court. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rrius (talk • contribs) 04:44, 21 November 2012‎ (UTC)

sockpuppet charge and please fact check

 * The sockpuppet charge was closed by the time I looked, dismissed as unjustified. Thanks for the heads up.
 * - Golbez has responded to your cite of Ponce for Puerto Rico, asking for the research on the other "inhabited territories". I made an answer for all four, recapping your contributions in earlier sections, and extending the argument for Samoa. FYI, I respect Golbez a great deal. I suppose we agree on 60% of the issues across multiple article pages for over a year now.
 * - Samoa, though with republican forms of local government, affirmed a part of the geographic extent of the U.S. in the Homeland Security Act and presidential executive order, Article III federal court, U.S. tax district, Member of Congress and permanent U.S. citizen residence. Golbez has in the past reasoned that since Samoa does not have 'natural-born' citizenship by the soil, neither Samoa nor any territory should be included in the geographic extent of the U.S. federal republic as described in the country-article first-sentence.
 * - I am reluctant to re-edit the article page, as I tried until getting red-lettered wiki-bot warnings about edit wars. But I have tried getting input from the history-geography community and the political science community, and asked for an arbitrator since November. No response at all, anywhere. It seems reliable sources are not sufficient in the face of long posted, unsourced "consensus" error without some patient work. I'd like to discuss the mechanics of wikipedia with you if you are interested. I feel like I could use a Tea Room like the one you were invited to on your homepage.
 * - In any case, since I have summarized and somewhat extended your earlier research, would you please check behind me at Talk:United States? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:54, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration committee

 * At Talk:United States, you said, "Maybe is time to get the help of an Arbitration Committee to assisted us to reach an agreement!" --Buzity (talk) 8:07 pm, 31 January 2013, last Thursday (5 days ago) (UTC−5). I agree, but I am not sure how to go about it. I do believe it takes two editors to initiate some procedures.
 * _ _ I have asked for ‪Requests for comment at U.S. history and geography, and at Political science, and for assistance at Country article community. ‬Literally no response. At ‪Wikipedia:Third opinion‬ I tried for mentor who concluded that Wikipedia can do little damage when it is wrong.
 * _ _ Of course, I think full citizenship with human rights, a degree of local autonomy and national representation in a federal republic is sort of the reason why you have one. See Abraham Lincoln, Benito Juárez, Jose Rizal, Sun Yat-sen. So yes, the five U.S. territories with those characteristics should be included in the extent of the U.S. federal republic for a general readership encyclopedia. Every American school-kid who dials up "United States" at Wikipedia should see in the first sentence, the people of the U.S. territories are now a part of the U.S., regardless of our difficult and painful pasts, which should be treated in unflinching history articles elsewhere.
 * _ _ Does your tea room connection give us a clue of how to properly proceed? Please answer on this page. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:31, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Mediation first
I think mediation comes before arbitration, so I've added the section "Include Territory" summary for mediation at Talk:United States, which I hope is satisfactory. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

You are invited to a dispute resolution.
You are invited to join in the discussion about the U.S. introduction describing the federal constitutional republic “including territories” or “excluding territories” at Defining the United States of America.

The immediate concern is a section, “Questions for parties” where the arbitrator is asking for each to voice a preference a) b) c) d), and brief rationale. (For example, mine was too long, illiciting the gentle, “thanks the input” response and another request for my choice.)

An editor for accommodating territories in the lead, RightCowsLeftCoast, said of my idea to invite you, “The more the merrier, IMHO. The more editors involved, the stronger a consensus is once it is formed.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 2:17 am, Today.” Please join in if you have a chance. Thanks in advance. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:03, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard
You are invited to join the discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:24, 2 March 2013 (UTC)