"
At Talk:Americans you told me to walk away from the discussion. I offered to walk away and stop editing that article if you would also agree to discontinue editing that article. What's your answer?  (t•c)  
Walk away, as in walk away from the argument. Why would I walk away from an article? That is just silly. See WP:SOAPBOX. Please, stop it.
The consensus that was created allowed both POVs in the lead paragraph, allowing for the statement about non-citizens claiming American identity, which is sourced by a source provided by .
I really don't see what the argument here is. Both POV's are provided due weight. Both views are presented. The content was improved by adding percentages of non-citizens counted by the census.
Therefore, please walk away.  
The introduction consensus is Citizens of the United States are referred to as Americans. Although citizens make up the majority of Americans, non-citizen residents, dual citizens and expatriates may also claim an American identity."" 

It places Sparkie82 point of view front and center. What is the rationale for removing ""non-citizen residents, dual citizens and expatriates"" which other editors sought to include as they are counted by the U.S. census as sourced and included in discussions throughout the literature? To change, there must be a rationale, a counter-source, and context among the preponderance of sources which include more than citizens so as to gain a new consensus on the Talk page.   

@TheVirginiaHistorian I'm fine with what you just said was the consensus, i.e., ""Citizens of the United States are referred to as Americans. Although citizens make up the majority of Americans, non-citizen residents, dual citizens and expatriates may also claim an American identity."" That is a compromise version we reached a while ago. However, RightCowLeftCoast keeps changing the first sentence to: ""Americans, or American people, are citizens of the United States of America."" and then he declares that his version (which he has been defending for years!) is a consensus, which it is not. At this point, I sincerely question his able to act in good faith.  (t•c)  

@RightCowLeftCoast, if you sincerely want to see the article be the best that it can be and you trust the community to tend to the article, and you don't simply want to keep inserting your own version into it, then please stop editing the article. If you do, I will also stop editing it. What is your answer?  (t•c)  
The edit made changed the lead paragraph which was stable for several months, claiming to change it to a consensus version, while not. It failed to provide references for the lead sentence, which the stable version has in spades. Futhermore, the sentence in the stable version remains in the lead paragraph after the second sentence which explaining the multicultural nature of Americans. This sets up for the third sentence. All the content is well cited and, the cite added in the reverted edit by Sparkie82 is a duplicate source from the current third sentence.
The fact that Americans are Citizens of the United States is very well cited in the stable version.
As this is about article content this is better of in the Americans talk page and not my talk page, and kindly ask Sparkie82 to leave me alone.  "