User talk:68.155.97.188

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Reggaeton

Some of your removals are justified; others are not. I wish you would be a little more careful/discerning about what you remove. The information about Steely & Clevie's role in the "Dem Bow," as well as Nando Boom's cover version are important. The additional info on racial ideologies should not be struck simply because of the YouTube link. I happen to be the author of the Phoenix article that is one of the most cited sources in the Reggaeton article here, so I speak from some authority. Just sayin. Wayneandwax (talk) 21:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Believe me when I say that I speak with more authority on the subject of Latin reggae and reggaeton for reasons I don't need to go into, but my knowledge or yours is irrelevant on wikipedia. My talk page isn't the place to discuss changes, please read the discussion page for the main article if you have feedback. That way other contributors and wikipedia administrators can view everyone's take on any edits made. Ironically I agree with a lot of what was added to the wiki entry, but the fact of that matter is that a great deal of it is either POV, unreferenced, copyvio or obscure (i.e. doesn't pass the "Google" sniff test). I wouldn't remove something you add if those issues didn't come up. I only ask that you do a better job of finding references and or cross references, and don't edit based on personal knowledge. You and I both have one job in common, and there's something to be said for objective journalism. Wikipedia isn't an op-ed piece. 68.155.97.188 (talk) 20:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not interested in arguing about who is a greater authority. But I find your management of the reggaeton page to be a little overbearing. You have struck certain items because you declare them to be POV or unreferenced, but in plenty of cases that's a matter of opinion. Why your opinion should be the final one, I don't see. But I know that that's how it works here. It's all a matter of investment. That's fine. Once certain articles have been published, there'll be no doubt about what's referenced and what's not.Wayneandwax (talk) 20:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Trinidad

Take a look at WP:UNDUE before restoring that section, further I removed part of that section because it was unsourced particulary the "brassknucles" claim, and that was before merging. Which was done precisely done based on WP:BLP, wich states that "The views of critics should be represented if they are relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics", I have not problem mentioning the incident so I merged it with the relevant section, but the way you restored conflicts with both policies and will jeopardize the article's nomination. - Caribbean~H.Q. 22:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

You are failing to understand me, you are adding information that is irrelevat to this case, giving undue weight to somebody uninvolved in the case, Joppy in particular has nothing to do with it and pushes the appear to side with the critics part of that policy, the section may be near NPOV as it is, by excluding Trinidad's response there is no need to aggraviate it. - Caribbean~H.Q. 08:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


I provided a counter point in the past by a supporter of Trinidad's but someone removed it (can't find it). If you feel Joppy has nothing to do with the Hopkins situation, I feel its appropriate to add Joppy's quoted comments to the section of the wiki that deals specifically with their fight. Overall, Tito's incorrect hand wraps play a part in his career. Comments by Joppy, Rahman and Vargas help establish a pattern of behavior on Tito's part (no different than quotes attributed to Barry Bonds associates that mention use of steroids). Please include it in the Joppy section, at least, where it is inarguably relevant.
And not saying this applies to you, but its unfortunate that the only people who have removed those quotes in the past year have all been residents of Puerto Rico (going by IP or wiki profile). I do feel as though there has a little bit of edit bias going on in the past. 68.155.97.188 (talk) 08:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I recon that you are trying to protect your work [1], but you must understand mine here as well, I must avoid BLP issues, and the same way that I merged that information to its relevant section as was done with Vargas, I also copy-edited the article to remove pro-Trinidad pov on at least three occassions. I have no particular interes over what Trinidad does with his career, but my work is to improve articles that have a potential of being cleaned and sourced, this was just one of five in this month. Now in the past I have restored this section several times, and have seen several edit wars in wich there are addresses working in the range you use, so my guess is that you were involved. I restored the section because it was relevant to the Hopkins fight and it shouldn't be deleted, but on the other hand the comments coming from several users claimimg that it was biased were also taken under consideration, and I did what had to be done, I cut the thread in the middle. Seeing that you have most likely been involved in edit wars over this in the past I wouldn't recommend resuming that pattern, its obvious you have a pov of your own and that often leds to ignoring policy, wich is as bad as the users that are currently trying to push that he lost to Jones because Roy was 'heavier'. - Caribbean~H.Q. 09:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a clear cut distinction between my restoring a section that was carefully researched and referenced, and someone edit warring by simply deleting that entire section without an explanation. Historically, I've only restored content when no reason was given for its removal by vandals. If you've stumbled across IPs in my range before, you should know by now that my edits are always with good intentions. I still believe that Joppy's comments are relative to the Joppy fight paragraph. The fact that the head of the New York State Athletic commission was forced to step in and take action, means Joppy's claims could have some merit. Again, its an established pattern of behavior, it's as relevant as mentioning Vargas' steroid use. 68.155.97.188 (talk) 10:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
The information is there, if Joppy would have made the comment at the time of his fight it would have been relevant, commenting about it after somebody else makes the claim is not so much, he didn't provide evidence of it so it could have been a scapegoat, the Hopkins event is listed because it was documented but this one isn't, wich means its treated the same way as in politics, a direct adversary is never considered a reliable source. - Caribbean~H.Q. 10:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Welcome

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

You are welcome to continue editing articles without logging in, but you may wish to create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits. If you edit without a username, your IP address (68.155.97.188) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) 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! Kip Kip 22:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)