User talk:Avfnx/Archive Jun 2007

Dominican Republic

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. Please be aware that although you disagree with the other's point of view and because I am not entirely sure that the other editor is an obvious vandal, you may be in violation of the three-revert rule. Thanks. -- LeCour^T:C 01:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reply on talk page of DR article 64.131.205.111 12:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

another reply..64.131.205.111 19:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you do me a favor? When you make an edit on talk pages, please use ~~~~ when signing. It makes it much easier to follow the chronology of events. Thanks! -- LeCour^T:C 21:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lets Cool Down

I think we should get over all this fighting and lets all try to be constructive..Hey bro lets ignore negative comments too because if not we not going to go anywhere..I Made a new section in the discussion exclusively made for expanding ideas and thougths!EdwinCasadoBaez 07:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Welcome, and thank you for experimenting with the page Dominican Republic on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. This is your final warning. The next time you remove cited material as you did here [1] you will be blocked. 64.131.205.111 17:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Avfnx, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!

I see that you already got a block warning, so here some basic informations about how things work here in a more welcoming form. I have seen that you are willing to contribute to the quality of our articles. So I think a look at the rules how to do it may help. As a side note 64.131.205.111 can not block you. S/he is no administrator here, only a few of the signed up users are. But if you violate the rules mentioned above s/he can report you to administrators, which in the case of repeated or gross violations of the rules indeed block users. Best regards! VirtualDelight 22:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your nice message! I'm looking forward to work with you and other fellow editors in our common goal to improve the quality of this and other articles. Unfortunately my real live is quite demanding at the moment and so I wont be able to do much editing in the next few days. But I guess there will be a long way to bring this article to featured status ... Best! VirtualDelight 17:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

how am i a sockpuppets

can you please explain Avfnx 19:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't the one that put you on that list, so I can't say for certain.--Rosicrucian 20:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

so how can I take my self the list Avfnx 21:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The list stays as a record of the case. My notice to you was just to let you know that someone had put you on that list. Given that the CheckUser indicated you were not a sock, the list only exists as a record that you were accused, not that you were found to be a sock. In other words, you've already been cleared of suspicion.--Rosicrucian 21:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know you mean well.. but you're going to get into a huge edit war with this guy.. it's better to add ^{[citation needed]} rather than removal...[2] 64.131.205.111 14:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i saw his edits.. i actually took a look for proof and couldn't find any. i listed it on the talk:DR page that i couldn't find any proof. it seems like creative writing, but for the sake of an edit war with him later (and he seems to have done this to a lot or articles) do the fact thing. you don't want him and yourself banned. 64.131.205.111 15:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

what about the 3 founding fathers? the article? with the birth of a nation thing.. simply wait a few days and if you get no reply remove it make note of it in the talk page and remove it 64.131.205.111 07:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duarte, Sanchez and Mella

Hello Avfnx! The policy on verifiability states that "the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article." The policy on reliable sources states that exceptional claims, and I think this claims are exceptional claims, require exceptional sources. You may use the fact tag like 64.131.205.111 suggests. Or you may remove any edit lacking sources, giving this reason in your edit summary together with asking for sources and discussion on the articles talk page. In this case I would suggest to also note your removal, your reason for doing so and an invitation to provide sources and discuss changes to the article on the articles talk page. On protection of the articles you could ask for protection here. But i would think that at the moment, like it was the case with the country article, such a request would be denied as administrators to not protect articles because of content disputes. This may change if this editor keeps making this changes again and again but does not follow the invitation to present sources and discuss changes (edit war). 64.131.205.111 may be right in cautioning against edit waring here. But the main problem with this articles that I see after a first quick look is that they are not or poorly sourced. So it is far to easy to change around their content. This would be much harder if there is a number of reliable sources backing up the content. I hope this helps a bit as I'm not able to do much more in terms of editing for at least this week. Best! VirtualDelight 09:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how you can justify the killing of 17,000 humans for the robbing of cattle. The article is another citation of a massacre that is pretty well documented. 64.131.205.111 10:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the article doesnt make him seem good at all. in fact if you read it, it also states current things that have gone on "NEW YORKâOn May 23 some 100 rallied outside the Dominican Republic consulate here in an emergency protest against ongoing racist terror against Haitians living in the Dominican Republic. Since May 9, five or more Haitians have been murdered, at least three of whom were lynched in a style reminiscent of the Ku Klux Klan in the U.S. South. Hundreds of others were forced to flee Dominican mobs armed with guns, machetes and clubs. Haitians and Black Dominicans, many of whom sought refugee with Dominican police and army forces, were rounded up in mass expulsions. The expulsions have totaled over 4000 so far. " 64.131.205.111 16:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Personal Attacks

Please do not attack other editors, which you did here: Talk:Dominican_Republic [3] . If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 64.131.205.111 19:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, which you did here: Talk:Dominican_Republic [4] . If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This is your final warning! 64.131.205.111 07:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please Wikipedia:Civility other editors, which you did here: Talk:Dominican_Republic [5] . If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. You have violated several rules in a row. This is your final warning! 64.131.205.111 18:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility

Please Wikipedia:Civility other editors, which you did here: Talk:Dominican_Republic [6] . If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This is your final warning! 64.131.205.111 19:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing warnings is not acceptable. You may discuss why you think they are inappropriate at the correct venue (which now includes my talkpage). Please be civil and Assume Good Faith in your dealings with other editors. LessHeard vanU 12:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have now had the opportunity to look over the edits mentioned above. I see no evidence of attacking other editors, nor of specific incivility, outside of a heated debate. While not condoning the language used there this editor is far from the only individual violating civility. It appears that the warnings above are an attempt to enforce the arguments of other editors. I shall, when I have time, contact the various participants and invite them to chill out a little. LessHeard vanU 13:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you have now been blocked, and the block confirmed. I will not, in this instance, unblock but I do note that you have not been previously warned regarding WP:3RR and will mention it to the other admins. In future please bring disputes regarding content to the appropriate forums so they might be properly considered. Also, read up on the rules, policies and guidelines for en-wiki so you do not mistakingly fall foul of them again. LessHeard vanU 20:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Giving you notice

[7] YoSoyGuapo 07:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the above User:YoSoyGuapo has been infinite blocked for sockpuppetry. LessHeard vanU 12:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Please don't place that I have signed things that I haven't. [8] . Thank you. BoriquaStar 21:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

why would you have thought i wrote it? it seemed pretty deliberate. BoriquaStar 02:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

no, you created spaces which I saw here [9] [10] [11] and then you said that i signed it [12] . BoriquaStar 03:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If that were the case, you wouldn't have created spaces in the middle of the paragraph and then inserted my name. Creating the illusion of two users who supported your case. BoriquaStar 03:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,User Avnfx

I am happy to be back and work with you in the Dominican Republic Article...As i seen in the last few days i been noticing that BoricuaStar is kinda suspicious!!!He seems to be the Sock Puppet of IP:64.131!!!!!do u know how to block him or something???EdwinCasadoBaez 23:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

=Thanks for Your Advice brother

Yes i am going to Calm down from now on because i guess theirs no point on being blocked every week!I will try to do my best but is just that when i see people that hate dominicans it gets me mad and i loose my temper out here!!i will try my best buddy!and lets fix this article!!i changed the Geography section of DR!!see if u like it!EdwinCasadoBaez 05:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the river

Rio Massacre that the river name AvFnx 22:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it? It seemed off to me, so when I researched it I got the impression it was another name for the Rio Artibonito. Appologies if I came to the wrong conclusion.--Rosicrucian 23:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]