User talk:71.235.81.39

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please remember to focus on the specific article on whose talk page you are choosing to discuss your views. Generalizing your comments to "NYC > Boston"-type complaints is not helpful and will start to appear that you are attempting to make a point in disrupting the talk page discussion for these articles rather than attempting to improve the article. Thanks. ju66l3r 06:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Your comments on various talk pages

"stop trying to leech off of cities that have nothing to do with you"

This statement is uncivil. Please be sure to read and heed WP:CIV before you resume editing.

Atlant 15:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


I agree the statement you posted was uncivil this is your second warning. (XGustaX 15:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC))

As was this...

PR's (Puerto Ricans), like Dominicans and others are ashamed of their African blood. This is why the darker will always try to mix with the whitest one that they can find. Also if they can find a white person, that's even better for them! They are trying to (in their minds) breed out the black. It can't be done. The more shocking part is, the culture of PR is almost 100% African! This includes the so-called Spanish culture which is based on an African one. Yes, check it out my friend...

Please refrain from expressing your own views on article talk pages. Your comments are disruptive and do not help the article editing [[process in anyway. - Mtmelendez (TALK|UB|HOME) 14:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

It is a 'talk' page, not an article. This is presumably where one would express their own views. The views that I expressed were reality, not just 'my own.' I just get the feeling that you don't like what I wrote because the truth is pretty hard to digest.--71.235.81.39 07:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm actually really open to any arguments and "truths" you may provide. What I meant to say was that your arguments should be backed by reliable sources, and not just your opinion or "views". Other users may be offended by your views, regardless of whether they are right or wrong, and providing external sources helps you in presenting your argument so that it may be included in the article. - Mtmelendez (TALK|UB|HOME)

I don't think that I need to provide 'proof' on a talk page. I do need to provide some form of proof is editing the article, which of course you would never let happen if it goes against the "PR's are mostly white" way of thought.--71.235.81.39 23:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey. I see you obtained sources for your arguments. I've read them and they seem really good. Check out the Puerto Rico talk page for my comments to see how we can include these sources in the articles. - Mtmelendez (TALK|UB|HOME) 15:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 31 May 2007

With regard to your latest comments on Talk:New England, calling other editors "propagandists" is a violation of WP:CIV. The next time you do this, I will block you for incivility.

Atlant 23:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah right. You just want to block me an anyone who exposes those with agenda's. There was nothing wrong with my comments in the 'DISCUSSION' page, not article.--71.235.81.39 00:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Calling other users propagandists is uncivil, and the civility policy applies everywhere; you're not free to insult people just because it's not an article you're editing. Leebo T/C 02:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

How is calling someone a propagandist an insult?--71.235.81.39 05:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

When it's an unsubstantiated opinion. You can't call the editors who have different opinions propagandists. The word implies malicious intent, when you should be assuming good faith. Leebo T/C 12:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It is hard to assume good faith when propaganda is all that seems to stand out as I read articles. If you cannot read the articles and see how pro-Boston and full of serious assumptions, then I don't know what to say.

You know, I met a girl from Maine online. I told her I was from CT and she said: "you are from New England like me!" I said what? She then went on to talk about the six states and Boston. I then told her that we in CT know nothing about that region, Boston is no where near local or recognizable to us, all of our media is NYC centered as is our transportation. We view ourselves from an NYC perspective and New England is something that is only kept up in the minds of people in the Boston area. If you don't believe me, you need to sit in on some CT city meetings sometime.--71.235.81.39 01:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Connecticut is part of New England, geographically. End of story. Now, you can say what you want about the culture of the Greenwich area or whatever, but Connecticut is part of New England. I've never heard someone go on like you about this. Leebo T/C 19:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Also, I live just about equidistant from Boston and New York - I identify with neither (though I root for New York teams). I don't feel culturally related to either city and I visit both about the same. But guess what? I'm just one person. You're just one person. Alone our experiences mean nothing. Leebo T/C 19:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

See, I am not alone. This is an ongoing debate because people from Boston/New England NEED CT to make their BS city seem more important. They need CT because we are in the NYC area (it is that way in the 203), this is why they keep mentioning Yankees with their Red Sox as opposed to letting the RS stand alone. They need our market. They know that CT is the wealthiest state in the country, but most of that wealth is in the NYC area, so they do what ever they must to bring or FORCE CT to see things from a Boston perspective. I have never seen an American city so far away try to control a state that is out of their way. We (the 203) are near NYC with NYC borders and we are no where near MA or the very far away and small city of Boston.

The are some rather odd businesses in the town of Bridgeport, Norwalk and Greenwich. Most people would just take them as some unknown businesses, but I see something else. What I see is the name NEW ENGLAND displayed so large that any other name related to what the businesses do are not noticed. It is as if it is so type of ad to remind people in this part of the state that it is New England and it had better remember it! In case you are still in the dark, go to town meetings in the 203 and see if New England, MA, RI, Boston or even Hartford are ever mentioned. What you will hear are the city's relation in the NYC area - never New England.

In case you think that this is a joke or something in my mind, take Boston/MA businesses in CT for example. Off the top of my head their is Marshall's, AJ Wright/TJ Max, Stop & Shop, Shaw's and Hood. Notice how these companies peddle their New England/Boston crap in their stores as if WE want them. They do not even care about which market they are in, they just flood the stores with Boston sports teams gear and that Hood ice cream "New land" flavors. Talk about desperate people up there. If you think it is a coincidence, I asked why there was no Yankees gear down here where no one cares for Boston sports, they said that the owner is from Boston and owns some of the Red Sox, plus the company is out of Boston. Now contrast that with Dick's or any other sports/clothing store and they say that they only carry local teams. Guess what? Local is New York, not Boston. We get NYC TV, radio, papers and transportation. You guys up in Hartford don't even get any of that for Boston. They can do what they want to, but they can never change what is.--71.235.81.39 19:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean, "See, I'm not alone." Only you and I are talking and I'm disagreeing with you. Leebo T/C 21:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Well maybe I am alone on this site, but not in CT, the 203 part. That is the part of CT I am speaking for. I could care less about the area by MA or RI. They are near those states and not near anything so New England is all that they have, even though New London does not seem to like the New England thing either.--71.235.81.39 22:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Dude. If you don't like the Red Sox, that's your decision. If you don't like Stop & Shop or Shaws, or Hood, thats also your decision. But regardless of how you feel, CT is a part of New England. If you want to follow New York, buy Yankees stuff, etc., New York is just down the road, and feel free to move there. And what do you mean "change what is?" CT "is" part of New England. So you're right! We can't change what is, because we don't have any reason to! CT is part of New England, and there isn't anything one person can do about it. I know what you mean when you say you could care less about Boston. My college is 20 minutes from the border with RI, and all we hear about is Providence. I could care less about Providence. But there isn't a damn thing I can do about it. Give it a rest. This isn't a political forum, thus what you say here won't carry any weight. Tell it somewhere where it can. Which isn't here. I agree with Leebo: I've never seen somebody go on like this either. Give It A Break. Neo16287 23:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't recall talking to you, but in MY part of CT, there is no New England thing going on here. That was my point. In the article, they have something called "southern New England," which we know nothing about. It is news to us. Here, we have and call ourselves the tri-state, as in NY/NJ/CT which we are ann official part of. Again, I have to stress that I am talking about CT in the 203 area code, NOT by MA or RI.--71.235.81.39 01:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

No one is saying that Greenwich is part of Boston culture. No one is saying the "tri-state" arrangement doesn't exist. But CT is part of New England even if the farther parts identify differently. Hartford is the capitol, so I'm not sure why you'd dismiss it as unimportant in your message to me ("You guys up in Hartford, near MA can be as New Englandy as you want to be"). BTW, you left that message on my user page, not my talk page. Leebo T/C 03:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

This whole site is not arranged to well, so I don't which is what or how to find it. Why did you put tri-state in quotes? It is as if you take it for a joke. Just because you guys up north are into Springfield, MA does not mean that the rest of the state is. This is the NYC area that I am in. Also, Hartford is only the POLITICAL capital of the state, not cultural despite how you guys often confuse the two. Cities in the 203 is where things happen. The 203 is the cultural center of the state. You forget or do not know that New Haven used to be the capital, but Hartford was chosen because it is easier to get to from all parts of the state. Most state capitals are nearer the center.--71.235.81.39 03:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to discuss this any more unless you have written, verifiable sources for all of your information. I frankly don't have the energy to discuss your original research about what "everybody" in southwest CT thinks. Find sources or don't complain. There are many sources for CT's status as a part of NE. Leebo T/C 04:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Also, with reference to you saying "This whole site is not arranged to well, so I don't which is what or how to find it." Click on my name to go to my user page. Click on "Discussion" to go to my talk page. Or, just click on the "T" after my name to go to my talk page directly. Simply as that. Leebo T/C 04:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] disruption

Editor, please do not continue in the direction you're going. See: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, and Wikipedia talk:Don't be a dick. Your posts are running on indignant anger in a deliberate attempt to disrupt wikipedia. We welcome any and all constructive edits and talk page discussions on well-articulated points; however, label and name calling conveys no more information than "I disagree with your viewpoint and am unwilling to listen".--Loodog 00:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] signing posts

Editor, please sign your posts on talk pages with four tildas like so ~~~~. Also, any new discussion should be added to the bottom of the page in the interests of organization. Thank you.--Loodog 00:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trolling

Hello, I recently removed some of your trolling on talk pages. I am also warning you that if you continue your behavior of leaving disruptive and uncivil comments on talk pages relating to your Anti-Boston point-of-view, I will start a thread on you at WP:ANI. This would represent the first step in having you blocked for some period of time from editing here at wikipedia. You have been warned. BH (Talk) 18:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to User:Black Harry, was not constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. ♥Fighting for charming Love♥ 02:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thread on WP:ANI

In response to your vandalism/trolling of my user page, I have started a thread on you at WP:ANI. To view it, go Here.

--BH (Talk) 03:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Incivility

This edit is uncivil. I've warned you about this sort of behavior before and I will block you the next time you do something like this. By the way, I have read your comments on the Administrator's Noticeboard and feel they demonstrate a continuation of exactly the sort of attitude that I've warned you about in the past.

Atlant 12:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

It was uncivil, for one, but stop leaving messages on other users' user pages. You clearly understand to go to Talk:New England when you want to discuss New England, so why is it so hard to go to User talk:Black Harry instead of leaving your message on User:Black Harry? Leebo T/C 12:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 6 June 2007

Okay, based on your further postings, I think we've finally reached the point where a short time-out might be in order just so that you understand that we actually do have rules here and the rules will be enforced. You have now been blocked for a short while for incivility. Please take this time to read WP:CIV (and maybe WP:NPA and WP:AGF) and come back after your block ready to cooperate with other editors.

Atlant 13:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Sigh...* What is the problem now...? Why do you people keep harassing me? I think I may have to report you guys. You know I am doing nothing wrong but you stay on my case. I read talk pages all over and I read the most foul language and even racism, but you are on my case for teaching reality? I am doing nothing wrong. You guys are like crooked politicians. You make laws to abouse them, but don't follow them yourselves.--71.235.81.39 14:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
When you speak of us "harassing" you, THAT is an example of the problem. I'm certainly not harrassing you, I'm simply explaining to you that I expect civil behavior from all Wikipedians. I also explained to you what the consequences of ignoring my expectations would be. And you went on behaving just as badly as before. So now, I've blocked you briefly. And if you don't shape up, I (or another administrator) will block you for longer and longer periods.
We will not tolerate continued violations of the civility rules.
By the way, I know you know where the Administrator's Noticeboard for Incidents is located; if you feel like you've been mistreated, you may always raise your concerns there (once your block is over). You can also add the {{unblock}} template to this talk page if you want to plead your case sooner. But based on your track record, I wouldn't think you'll have much chance of swaying anyone to unblock you immediately. For example, this recent edit doesn't speak well for you.
Atlant 16:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
People, people. The intention of the block was a time-out/cool down to let tempers rest. Everyone breathe. Take the argument back up in a couple days.--Loodog 16:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Block

You were blocked from editing all pages except this page for 31 hours, at around 9:45 am Boston time yesterday. This block will expire in less than 2 hours from the time this message is posted. This is a friendly notice that if the activities that led to this block continue, you will be blocked again, and each subsequent block will get longer and longer, until you could potentially be banned from editing Wikipedia. BH (Talk) 19:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought that his was a "cooling out" period? I know that you are lying because only I was blocked. All you people are doing is trying to stop the flow on information. If I praised Boston/New England, you would have loved me, but since I point out several realities about CT, you want to insure that I can never again put them on this site. Plus your little joke about my being banned "Boston time" is not funny and it only proves what you are about and why I was blocked.--71.235.81.39 19:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

You were blocked because you warned not to do something, and did it anyway. We're not trying to stop the flow of information, were trying to keep discussions civil. I personally understand your assertion that some people in your little corner of CT think of themselves as part of NYC's area and not New England. However, the rest of the state does think of itself as part of New England. I have family in New London and Hartford, and your statements would be absurd to them. And I used the term Boston time because EST is ambiguous. BH (Talk) 19:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Editor, if you praised New England and declared Boston to be the cultural capital of the country and continued to argue as you have in the past, you would again be warned, and then blocked. Experienced wikipedia editors come from all over the world, as do people who have the power to block you. The only thing they will ALL object to is ignoring official wikipedia policies like Wikipedia:Verifiability by posting information without reliable sources and Wikipedia:Civility by making ad hominem attacks on other editors. If you declare Boston to have no influence beyond its city limits and abide by official policies, you WILL NOT BE BLOCKED. Viewpoints are never blocked, egregious failures to follow policy are.--Loodog 20:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how you could write such BS with a clear conscious. You must have read "Black Harry's" response where he says: "I personally understand your assertion that some people in your little corner of CT think of themselves as part of NYC's area and not New England." Are you still telling me that these people are NOT trying to protect their POV? You know you can't be serious. They can argue and even lie and assume, but I can't talk in a TALK page because it exposes another part of CT that some parts of CT and New England hate or are jealous of. Is you look under Tri-state on this site, you will find that a New Londoner feels himself to be a part of the Tri-state area, so you argument falls flat their too!

You see the latest news out of Bloomfield, NYC media was there. Even your beloved Boston came. See, NYC knows that CT is there territory while Boston only has the New England thing that they feel gives them 'rights' to CT. We in our 'little corner," which happens to be the most populous and wealthiest part of the state, are what we are. All I am trying to do is to get people with biases like you to accept it. You have no choice when you come down our way. We have no choice but to accept your way of thinking when we go up your way. That is, if we ever feel a need to go up there. The editors bias on this site is very clear. That is one reason why this site continues to lose all credibility as the days go by...--71.235.81.39 21:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


Loodog: Why would I have to put forth sources on a TALK page? I see that the vast majority of people DO NOT put firth sources on a TALK page. Sources seem to be requested when someone wishes to change the article, but not to talk. You people have clearly chosen to abuse you 'powers' and will clearly shut down anyone who challenges your views.--71.235.81.39 21:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


If you believe Black Harry is acting in a way that egregiously violates wikipedia policies, you are welcome to report him as he has done to you. To the best of my knowledge and ability, I will never violate wikipedia policy and you're feel to call me out on it when I do.
As for sources on a talk page, I believe you have a different view of what talk pages are for than what wikipedia policies say. The purpose of a talk page is only to exchange ideas about how to improve an article. You don't need sources on a talk page. Often, there can be successful arguments on talk pages without sources concerning POV and other subjective readings of an article concerning how the content is relayed, but if you're arguing about ethereal notions such as influence and aren't convincing anyone, nothing says "this isn't just my version of realty" like a reliable source. What is "true" is pointless here. What has a reliable source reigns supreme.

>See, when I provides DIRECT sources, they were dismissed as weather maps when they were from a Tri-state news channel! When I come with 'verifiable' (everything that I write is verifiable) sources, they either get critiqued by the usual suspects or they get deleted by the usual suspects. When you have to deleted something in a talk page, those words MUST be truly powerful in order for someone to have to do that.--71.235.81.39 00:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, since your comments were representative of a recurring discussion about New York's influence in New England, I did change the article. There was only one place in the article explicitly declaring Boston to be THE ONLY influence in New England; I changed it to read "Boston is considered to be the cultural and historical capital of New England, though today New York City exerts strong influence on the region's southwest corner." You can see my edit here.--Loodog 22:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

>See, this is what you are not understanding. You say "New York's influence on New England," but I am not saying NY has an influence on New England, it is on CT. Like it or not, many people in CT do not know and do not care about New England or CT being a part of this, as forced by the weak city of Boston. See, your line is false because NYC did not have an influence on New England, it is on CT. When you say NYC has an influence on CT, you make the assumption that New England has an influence on CT. I am here to tell that is not the case, at least like New England proper. Hartford is another thing, I am talking the 203 area code in CT. There is no New England down here and for you to suggest otherwise are pure lies and exists only to support your New England ideals and to make it appear as if Boston has an influence on CT, which it does not.

When you write:"...though today New York City exerts strong influence on the region's southwest corner." See, THAT is a lie and is designed to still promote the Boston POV/agenda. You say that CT is the region's 'southwest corner?' NO ONE in THIS region (NY Tri-state) looks at it that way. We are not seeing Boston or New England. We view ourselves from a NYC perspective. This is why I gave the links to show YOU how WE view OURSELVES, not how you think we should view ourselves. You need to spend some time down this way and you will see that there is no New England is this NYC area. You may get mad because of it.--71.235.81.39 00:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome to whatever views you have, but I am constrained to put in the article only what I can find from reliable sources, [1], [2], [3]. I've heard the view that Boston is the only prominent center in New England, but using this definition of New England (the only one I can find), our notion of New England must be redefined to a region which is, in fact, impacted by New York City as well. If you can find sources that say "New England comprises the states of Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine." that clearly outweigh sources that include Connecticut, I would gladly change the article. I can't change the article because it's true, only because it's verifiable.--Loodog 05:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

>Your argument falls flat on it's face because aside from Webster's, the other two sites are opinion and can be put together by anyone. How do those sites as opposed these ([4],[5],[6],[7]) links which are physical. Tell me how NYC has an impact on New England/Boston? It only has an impact on CT. Anything ese that you assert is just New England/Boston propaganda. You just hate the fact that we do not recognize New England or see ourselves that way that you want us to.--71.235.81.39 16:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Stop calling people propagandists and their comments propaganda. You just got blocked for this type of incivility, so it's not wise to do it again. Wikipedia is a collaborative project. No one is calling you a CT/NYC propagandist, we're trying to discuss this with you. You have not shown an interest in working together while assuming good faith. So far, you've assumed that anyone who comments is a propagandist; quite the opposite of the guideline. Leebo T/C 17:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Editor, the weather outside is lovely today. Here it's 73 degrees, and there it's 78 degrees. Partly cloudy skies. Gentle breeze. I'm going to go enjoy it.--Loodog 17:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

>You don't have to call me a CT/NYC propagandist because you delete my comments, even on TALK pages whenever I come with something that proves your New England centered views wrong. I assume that you are propagandists because you block me, delete anything NY/NJ/CT related or dismiss it as 'that' place down there, you gang up on me to do nothing but stop the flow of information, you claim that YOU have good sources, but that are not even something I would call a source, when I bring official sources you dismiss these OFFICIAL sources because they SUPPORT what I write and go against you narrow view of this political/historical(only) area called New England. It is as if you New Englanders are in a massive conspiracy to 'recapture' CT because we are IN the NYC area. To even think that we get influenced by NYC because we like it is insane. We are right there! New England/Boston is waaay out yonder and have no effect on us. People who read the article need to know the truth, not propaganda from a few clowns. Yeah, I know, a block warning... Only to me of course!--71.235.81.39 20:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I have not done the things you accused me of (removing comments on Talk:New England, blocking you, deleting things that are NYC/CT related, etc.). I have done none of those things. Even so, you insist on continued insults (propagandist, clowns, etc.). Leebo T/C 20:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi 71.235.81.39. You will not be blocked or banned for expressing an opinion on a discussion page. But you may be blocked for incivility and foul language. Yes, New England (and the world) are diverse, alike and different in many ways. Yes, parts of Connecticut seem more like New York, but parts also feel more like the rest of New England. Much of Connecticut has zero Dutch ancestry and history, and the British traded for NY, there was no fight. Regional identity is a bit subjective and over time an evolving thing, there is still some regionalism left in the world. Why diss Boston? At least it doesn't try to be like NY, it knows it can't compete. It's like comparing Venus with Jupiter, Delaware with California, the Netherlands with the U.S. Boston can be provincial, unfriendly, parochial and dowdy, it can also be cutting edge in medicine and the sciences, charming, and progressive. Like most places it is by nature contrary. It is, by population, hardly even a tiny blip on the world stage. Yet it thinks it is the center of the universe. It thinks it is still America's Athens. All of this is self-absorbed and foolish, but I am fairly impressed after living here several years that very few people here take their cues from New York or Washington. You are 100 percent entitled to not liking the place, or the regional capital status it claims and many pay heed to. It's hardly worth getting worked up about. Maybe you can do what Bostonians do with something they find unintersting or not to their liking: ignore it. CApitol3 22:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New postings on talk pages

Editor, please add new postings to the bottom of talk pages as it is convention. Thank you.--Loodog 15:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

I have blocked you for another 48 hrs, during which you can re-assess the way you are interacting with others in talk pages. Wikipedia is not a battleground and civility and respect for other editors is expected. If you cannot do that, Wikipedia may not be for you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 71.235.81.32

I think that this user, has been editing pages from the IP address 71.235.81.32. The two addresses are similar, and both have expressed the same anti-boston sentiments on user pages. BH (T|C) 18:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Obvious sockpuupet. Editor has admitted that he/she is a sockpuppetier and uses his/her sockpuppets abusively on the other 71... talk page. I have blocked this account indefinitely as an abusive sockpuppet. Signaturebrendel 00:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)