User talk:64.131.205.111: Difference between revisions

St. John's University

Regarding "Revert to Neutral"

The article that the edit "Revert, Neutral Version" erases has been deemed unconstructive and slanderous by the discussion page. The "Neutral Version" should be the building block for the article. The slanderous article that you publish orders its sections: "Rankings", "Recent News", "Scandels", and includes primarily negative information about the university. Under the "Neutral Version" these subjects are still included in the article, but are listed toward the middle to end, where such information belongs. Items such as history, academics, programs, etc., should be listed toward the top of the article, as is the case with most Wikipedia articles concerning universities. Please allow the "Neutral Version" to be the building block for the St. John's article. The back and forth edits have become ridiculous. The "Neutral Version" gives fair acknowledgement of scandels, rankings, etc, but in a more appropriate section, and without slanderous intent. - Ticonderoga

-- what makes one version more neutral than another? is their a set order as to where informatino is supposed to be set according to wikipedia? slander is a civil charge. is there any information there that isn't true? 64.131.205.111 15:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

--Then I will use term malicious instead of slanderous. There is not set order that items should be listed, but the order should be gauged against the purpose of the article. What you are doing is similar to stating MLK was adulterous before mentioning he was an incredible civil rights leader. In my version of the article, all your facts are being preserved, but in a more appropriate manner. For the sake of civility, could we please quite this back and forth and just use the "neutral version" as the building block to the St. John's article? - 5/22/07, neutral version advocate

May 2007

This information is in the article. Read again. The article states: "Two of the country's former presidents Juan Bosch and Joaquín Balaguer, both had had parents who immigrated from Puerto Rico." Also you did not insert this information but undid all of my recent edits. Don't to this with an misleading edit summary or your edits will be undone. Regards. VirtualDelight 21:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

In response to your talk page "This information is in the article. Read again. The article states: "Two of the country's former presidents Juan Bosch and Joaquín Balaguer, both had had parents who immigrated from Puerto Rico." Also you did not insert this information but undid all of my recent edits. Don't to this with an misleading edit summary or your edits will be undone. Regards. VirtualDelight 21:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)"

Look at the history. You removed the information, but i reinserted it with the supporting evidence.

(cur) (last) 12:43, 19 May 2007 VirtualDelight (Talk | contribs) (36,676 bytes) (→Immigration - restore links, rm ironicaly as their Puerto Rican heritage is a fact while ironicaly is unsourced personal opinion)

I placed in information that wasn't personal opinion but confirmed fact. 64.131.205.111 21:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make any unconstructive edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant warnings.

Dominican Republic

Please discuss your edits on the talk page rather than continually inserting your point of view. I have no opinion either way as to whether the La Trinitaria could be considered a racist organization or not, but this has degenerated into edit-warring and is not acceptable. Thanks. -- LeCour^T:C 01:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

i've tried and will continue trying to move to the talk section. The trinitaria will be left out and brought to the talk section so that some type of process can be made. Also I'm going to try to find the origin of this source? Since it's been here as long as i've been editing. 64.131.205.111 02:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

La Trinitario funder actually admire Haiti, the reason for the separation was that simply didn't work out. If you want me find your source then I will, but can ask you, do you Spanish so I can find you what Juan Pablo Duarte wrote User:Avfnx

Look, I'm really trying to assume good faith and give you some good advice. Please stop! If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Discuss the issues of racism on the Talk page first. Then, once agreement has been reached, introduce it into the article. You'll need reliable sources, not just the occasional blog or travel website. Find newspapers, real magazines, books, anything reliable. Please remember that the threshold for inclusion of information in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. I really don't care either way about the racism issue, but you really need to do your part and cooperate on the Talk page, not just inserting and reverting. If you bring up your points on the Talk page, I -- as an impartial third party -- will be happy to review them and provide assistance and advice. That applies to both sides of the issue. Thanks! -- LeCour^T:C 19:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• Apologies!!! I added the warning to the wrong user page. It was meant for here. Sorry! -- LeCour^T:C 20:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

User User:Avfnx and I have agreed that it is extremist in nature and it wouldn't be included. Please look at the talk page of the article. You may have misread something. 64.131.205.111 20:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Warning to User:71.255.247.181

Umm, that seemed a bit harsh for offense number one. Please assume good faith, especially on a first-time edit to an article. -- LeCour^T:C 01:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Your threat to block me

Did you not even read what I did? I fixed a grammatical and substantive problem with the text. I checked the source and found that the Wikipedia entry did not accurately portray the information from the source. Furthermore, there was a punctuation problem that made it impossible to understand. Now you've returned it to the way it was. Incorrect and with the wrong grammar.

It's great that you are keeping an eye on the site, but going around and calling valid input "vandalism" without even responding to the content isn't helping the end result. And threatening to block me was really uncalled for. The information that I am removing is biased and anti-Dominican,hence it should be considered vandalism .Please refrain from adding your political ,cultural ,and social views to the article .Its very obvious where your views lean toward ,do not use Wikipedia to mis-lead and release false information. from 68.239.134.45

I never threatened to block anyone ,you probably have me mistaken for another user .Also,false information was the wrong term to use . The proper term is mis-information. from 68.239.134.45

Please refrain from name calling and personal attacks. This is against wikipedia policy. I am not inserting extreme nor slanderous information. I am not anti-dominican in any manner. Utilizing sources such as the Dominican Institute at CCNY would not be considered to be anti-dominican. Anything concerning that article would be better spoken about at the talk page of the article. 64.131.205.111 17:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Mis-informed and baised

Well then I apologize , I was not aware that I was name calling or personally attacking anyone.However, most of the text I originally removed came from biased and anti-Dominican sources.The text under the "Creation of the Republic" is in-accurate ,the source does not support this text "In 1822 Haitian liberation forces unified the entire island under a free government of color, ending 300 years of colonial domination and slavery. Roads were built; school curriculums were changed from a Spanish view to a worldview. Institutions of European colonialism were also phased out, and replaced with ones more representative and respectful of Taino and African culture. Land was redistributed communally and individuals who had benefited from the Spanish invasion and domination of the island were rightfully expelled [5]."[[1]].The text cannot be found on the website.Also,This describes the Haitian occupation as a liberation (sound familiar?),its an overwhelmingly biased peace of text.Part of the text under the Immigration section of the article "Most Haitian immigrants work at low-paying, unskilled labor jobs, including construction work and household cleaning. Current estimates put the Haitian-born population in the Dominican Republic as high as 1 million; slightly less than the illegal Dominican born population in the United States and Puerto Rico[citation needed]." is also in-accurate ,according to www.census.gov there are 1.1 million Dominicans in the United states both legally and Illegally .It is a well known fact that most Dominicans in the U.S.A are in the country legally."Compared to other Latino groups such as Mexicans or Puerto Ricans, Dominican population movements are relatively new. More than 98 percent of the 810,201 Dominicans legally admitted to the United States between 1931 and 1998 arrived after 1961. The statistics suggest a sudden and steadily increasing tide of immigrants from the Dominican Republic in the past four decades. By the 1980s, Dominicans had become one of the fastest growing segments of the foreign-born population in the United States. In the 1990s, the Dominican exodus continued unabated and diversified its regional destinations to new places in Europe, Latin America, and the Caribbean, as well as North America. Sizeable Dominican communities now exist in Italy, Switzerland, Canada, Panama, Aruba, Martinique, and St. Thomas. Again, the folk term los países seems particularly apt to capture the wide dispersal of the Dominican diaspora."[[http://migration.ucdavis.edu/ceme/more.php?id=19_0_6_0 ]]Also,under in the text of the Immigration , "Although Dominican economic groups have called for amnesty for Illegal Dominicans living in the US" this claim is also baseless .

Ask the person who placed this information in. in 2 paragraphs what are you stating? This too broad and would be better divided into sections. 64.131.205.111 00:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Get an Account

Dont blame me for vandalism that i didnt do and now u want them to block me!!great Job Buddy!!as i said before try getting an account and now being annonymous!I am expert in Dominican topics and you just come up to my talk page saying to cite my reference!!omgEdwinCasadoBaez 01:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)