User talk:184.32.55.194

December 2011
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Salvador Agron with this edit, did not appear to be constructive, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Millermk90 (talk) 05:21, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Re:salvador agron
The reason I reverted the edit was because you should not say that the article is contardictory in the article. If you would like to raise a concern, start a discussion on the article's talk page. I am not necessarily against or for the changes you are proposing, the article simply isn't the place to write that it's contradictory. Millermk90 (talk) 05:46, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Please do not add or significantly change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Millermk90 (talk) 05:48, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or  located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 05:56, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

RE:Salvador Agron
I'm sorry, i didn't mean to issue a warning about sources. I really have nothing against the edit except the part where you said "like a coward and" The rest of the edit did seem to further explain the events, and I would be happy if you re-added it. I only meant to remove the part "like a coward and" since it doesn't appear to be neutral.

I was being facetious in that one statement. This article and many others need major rewrites. That would be the reason that I added one little slant in my opinion...the whole article is slanted one way.

I have many issues with many articles written like this one. When an article is written with NPOV, I would not use such a word as coward. I just know alot of articles (like this one) are watched and guarded for an ethnic group tries to romanticize one of their own as special and justified when it is simply ethnicity protection and falsehoods.

My own grandparents used to talk about the mob constantly and romanticize them. I eventually spoke up at age 17 and told them that murder is murder and criminals are criminal and asked why. They ceased to talk about them for the next 20 years. People should be neutral and learn to put themselves in the others' shoes.

I guess that is the reason that I become facetious when seeing an article like this one and I know it is not right. It just is turning the tables on the one committing the wrongdoing in my eyes. No hard feelings here.

Your recent editing history at Juan Ponce de León II shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. Dougweller (talk) 07:23, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Stop
Please stop changing content which are properly referenced. Also your POV statements are not welcomed. You added the word "coward" to Agron's article which is your own personal point-of-view and said statements are not allowed per policy. Plus, your comments on the "talk" page of Juan Ponce de Leon II have a "racist" tone to it which is not welcomed either. Please refrain from your POV's or you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you Tony the Marine (talk) 21:03, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:Civility
You edits HERE, HERE, HERE, and HERE demonstrate you are not acting per the wikipedia policy referenced above. If you wish to continue editing without risking being blocked, I suggest you do not engage in age-related innuendos or racial, ethnic, or national origin slurs in your edits and remarks as you did to various Puerto Ricans-related articles. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 21:59, 18 December 2011 (UTC), and I approve this message.