User talk:Avfnx: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:10, 9 June 2007

if you're going to revert edits, please place in citations correctly. it ruins everything. also for discussion purposes please utilize the talk section. take off each sentence and reason for them. also for anything you place in utilize citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.131.205.111 (talk • contribs)

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 YORK—On 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]

Blocked

You have been blocked for violating the three-revert rule on Dominican Republic for a period of twenty-four hours. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. -- tariqabjotu 15:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Avfnx (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was rvt vandalism by user 64.131.205.111,yosoyguapo and dmvguy which are the same person, so I feel I shouldn't be block, but if you feel that other story but i don't see where i did wrong, i know there rules but i even tried take to the talk page...isn't against the rules have more the one account.

Decline reason:

reason the reverts were not of vandalsim but of content dispute (or possibly of POV), eg this revert. Content dispute is not vandalism, and to accuse others that it is breaches WP:AGF. Repeatedly reverting in content disputes is unhelpful and disruptive - seek to engage other editors on talk page, and if they fail join in, then seek advice of other editors. But to continue with repeatedly reverting is disruptive (in as much that it adds fuel to the edit waring fire). This is a community project - try to engage with those you disagree with, and where this does not seem to happen then make use of other editors. If you have evidence of sockpuppetry, then go to WP:CHECK, as to how to deal with those you felt were being incivil, see Wikipedia:Civility. For now, sit out the block and have a read of Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. David Ruben ^Talk 17:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

@@ Line 76: / Line 76: @@
 :Removing warnings is not acceptable. You may discuss why you think they are inappropriate at the correct venue (which now includes [[User talk:LessHeard vanU|my talkpage]]). Please be civil and [[WP:AGF|Assume Good Faith]] in your dealings with other editors. [[User:LessHeard vanU|LessHeard vanU]] 12:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 ::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. [[User:LessHeard vanU|LessHeard vanU]] 13:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
+:::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. [[User:LessHeard vanU|LessHeard vanU]] 20:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 == Blocked ==