User talk:71.192.72.141

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please refrain from adding nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Tuxide 04:39, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. — riana_dzasta wreak havoc-damage report 04:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Can either of you 2 explain how I am adding nonsense or my own personal analysis. From the FAQ for Gates Millennium Scholars [1] Q: What are the eligibility criteria for the GMS program? A: are African American, American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian Pacific Islander American or Hispanic American. Can you explain to me how in this modern world that is not racism? I will find some additional references to add to my addition to show I am not the only person who thinks giving scholarships based on race is racist, but I honestly think both of you are deleting my additions based on your own pre conceived ideologies that reverse racism is somehow "good" racism. I will hold off on re adding my entry until either of you get back to me with some specifics, not accusations...

The Gates Millennium Scholars fund is an overtly "racist" foundation only providing scholarships if you are African American, American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian Pacific Islander American or Hispanic American. Although public institutions are barred from administering race-exclusive scholarships (at least in the Fourth Circuit, since Podberesky v. Kirwan, 38 F.3d 147 (4th Cir. 1994), cert. denied 115 S. Ct. 2001 (1995)), the Gates Foundation is private and so its race-exclusivity is presumably legal.

From the LA Times Nov 1, 1999: "America's most celebrated college dropout had a great opportunity to boost higher education, help needy students and strike a blow against racism, but he blew it. If Bill Gates had been able to chat with Teddy Roosevelt before launching his breathtaking $1-billion program of college scholarships, America would be a better place.

Unless significantly amended, Gates' "minority" scholarships will further inflame racial tensions, delay the achievement of a colorblind society and subvert the cherished virtue of reward by merit.

The Gates Millennium Scholarships for thousands of high school seniors over the next 20 years are intended to produce more scientists, engineers, doctors and educators from among American minorities, who, he claims, are woefully underrepresented in college. His commitment to arbitrarily preferred groups is bound to increase racial resentment. Gates' vague concept of "diversity" confuses the laudable diversity of cultural talents that strengthens the nation with the self-conscious racial diversity that divides it by breeding arrogance and envy." LA Times Archives

When I first read this paragraph, (about your first or second edit), it had plenty of tone problems that I wasn't expecting to see in an encyclopedia. However, vpbot notified me multiple times concerning the article and I didn't realize you were in the middle of working on this paragraph, which I can clearly see now. It still has a few POV problems and this criticism is still unsourced. In the future, use the "Show preview" button and provide edit summaries, so other editors (and bots) will know what you're doing please. Regards, Tuxide 05:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I REALLY appreciate your reply, awesome, I just added a source from the LA Times to back it up, I did not come up with this criticism on my own! Also, I find it odd you did not remove this other criticism which is not sourced and has been present for a long time:

Still others criticize the whole charitable approach of the West and argue that Gates should be investing in businesses to stimulate the economies of poor countries rather than in charitable projects that encourage third world dependence on the first world and while alleviating short term problems do nothing to help the real infrastructure problems faced by third world nations. [citation needed]

I really feel you are deleting my entry because perhaps you disagree with the facts? or some how you believe that giving scholarships according to race is somehow not racist...

Hi 71. If you can find reliable sources and citations to back up your claims, no one will have a problem with it. I neither agree nor disagree with your edits; but I do believe in maintaining neutrality. If you can phrase your concerns such that the article reads less like a soapbox and more like any encyclopedia entry, and can find sources to furnish them, your edits may survive reversion. Best wishes, — riana_dzasta wreak havoc-damage report 05:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and to add to Tuxide's reply – please sign your posts with ~~~~, I was having some trouble separating your words from his :) With progressive saves, it's hard to tell whether you're working on the article consistently or just injecting random POV, so use 'Show preview' and all will be dandy :) You might also consider signing up for an account. — riana_dzasta wreak havoc-damage report 05:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll try my best, I appreciate your comments!! Hopefully the la times editorial will suffice for now. This criticism of the millenium scholarship is an old one, so most articles pertaining to it would be late 90's. I apologize for the many edits, I always preview but then find more and more info 2 source or bad grammar. :) I am afriad I have picked up some BAD wiki habits from my wiki site at work!-peterp

Although I am personally against reverse discrimination in general, I do not know enough about the Foundation to have an opinion against it. As far as the reversion, I am responsible for the edits I make with VandalProof; however I just started using it yesterday, and it lacks many things that I wish it did have that would have made what you were doing more clear to me. I assume VandalProof is intended for blatant vandalism such as [2], and not WP:NPOV or WP:V issues. You should really consider registering an account on Wikipedia. Apart from you not ever using edit summaries, you seem to be contributing quite nicely. Regards, Tuxide 05:43, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
oh man, someone else edited it and it looks almost perfect... short, concise, just fix the "if to" -peterp