Talk:Pedro Rosselló

Untitled

Completed merge from the Dr. Pedro Rosselló article. Additional text not included from the orginal is availalbe at Talk:Dr. Pedro Rosselló - Bah 01:59, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Primary

It has been deleted by someone the information about the 2008 NPP primary. I would like wikipedia to check because in order for some people keep important information off the record they have been deleting it. --72.50.122.111 (talk) 04:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

More info on Education

Does somebody have any info on where he got his medical degree?

          University of Notre Dame in 1966 he got a Bachelor's Dregree in Science "magna cum laude".
          In 1970 he got the title of doctor(also "magna cum laude") in Yale. After that he specialized
          as a general surgeon and pedriatic surgery in Harvard University. He finished school in 1981
          with a master's in public health in the school of medical sciences at the University of Puerto Rico.
          He also taught medicine at Havard.

          I got this info from http://www.biografiasyvidas.com/biografia/r/rosello_pedro.htm

          It's in Spanish, I just translated it in my own words for you. If you want to, put it in better words and add
          it to the biography here. As long as we are not violating any copyrighting, we're just paraphrasing.

          Jnxt231 (talk) 22:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)jnxt231

More information on his Political Career

Someone should do a bit of more research, because basically his senate position is illegal, as he have not yet accomplished the 2 years that law requires you to apply for a government position (governors, senate, etc).

• That claim was raised by a former senator and the case moved up to the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, yet the courts ruled that Rosselló could fill the vacant senate seat. His position is recoginized by the Puerto Rico State Elections Commission and by the Courts of the island. user: Coburnpharr04

The article mentions that Senate President Kenneth McClintock and other senators who support him were expelled from the party. That is not entirely correct. Although the Rosselló-controlled "Directorio" of the New Progressive Party did recommend in February 2006 the expulsion of McClintock and Senate Vice President Orlando Parga, the fact is that the party's General Assembly, when it subsequently met did not vote on that recommendation, contrary to Senator De Castro's proposed expulsion, which was ratified by the General Assembly in August, 2005. As things stand, De Castro is out of the party, and McClintock and four others are not allowed to file for the 2008 party primary, sanctions of dubious constitutionality that will most certainly be challenged successfully in court (McClintock stated as much in his interview by Luis Francisco Ojeda on WAPA-TV's noontime show yesterday, December 25).

Very good points that should definitely be reflected in the text of the article! Make sure you find a source for ref. Flybd5 17:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Telephone Company sale

The figures presented in the article are incorrect. The Teelphone Compay was sold for 2 billion dollars, not 1.9 million dollars. The annual profit at the time of the sale was 100 million, not 2 billion as the article states.

• • If you bring a source we can correct it.<<Coburn_Pharr>> 01:55, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

--XLR8TION 17:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Telephone Company Sale

June 1998, Puerto Rico Business Review, reported that net income dropped from $130 million in 1994 to $104 million in 1997. This was accompanied by a decrease in the PRTC market share for wireless services of 100% in 1994 to 34% in 1997. The telephone company was sold for 1.9 Billion Dollars.

Corruption

Removed the comment about mayors and legislators being convicted. I know all about the scandals, but since mayors and legislators are elected independent from the governor, its unfair to make reference to them here since it implies the governor was responsible for their actions, much like agency heads, which he is not.

• I agree about the part of the mayors and legislators, but the agency heads are very much his responsabilty. The Governor is the CEO of the government, and the head of agencies respond directly to him, therefore their actions fall directily under the resposability of the governor. That is the reason why most of those positions are know "positions of trust." (puestos de confianza in spanish)<<Coburn_Pharr>> 23:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Corruption controversies

I added a missing references template. Due to the sensitivity of the issue, it should include verifiable references. Mtmelendez 19:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The last paragraph...the events that led to Rosselló's retirement, reads like a gossip, very unprofessional, and the grammatical style is very lacking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.112.75.239 (talk) 20:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Editorial Style

Please do not edit the style of this article by doing things like placing the names of people in "quotes." That is inappropriate and is an insult to people of Hispanic origin.Flybd5 00:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Where did you get this information from? Do you realize I am Hispanic? I don't feel insulted. Wikipedia is not a place for your POV. Your claim is baseless and ridiculous. --XLR8TION 23:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

To begin with, why would you place a name in quotes in the first place? And furthermore, why do you bother replying to this six days later, after mediation has begun? There is no need to deride his comments, remember WP:COOL! Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 23:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Jobjorn, it only shows that the editor is so clueless that he never took a look at my user page to see that I am Hispanic. Does Wikipedia need editors who make ridiculous claims of insulting Hispanic heritage? All I can say is ignorance is alive and well. --XLR8TION 05:30, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't care if you're Hispanic or don't feel insulted. It's wrong to do that purely for ethnic background reasons, and it is insulting to that ethnic community. Flybd5 05:39, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

How is this relevant to the discussion? WP:COOL. The question is: why would you place the names of people in quotes in the first place? Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 05:34, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Please view the Wikipedia Style Guide and see that your accusations are your own POV and baseless. Jobjorn, I italicized the names to bring them out in what was a very poorly written paragraph. Whoever originally wrote that article apparently is not a native English speaker and/or received a poor education. --XLR8TION 05:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

"Italicized the names to bring them out"?? <laugh!> Oh, I can't wait to hear what your next story will be. Reminds me of my son making up all sorts of stories when caught redhanded, and digging a deeper and deeper hole. Flybd5 06:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Apparent Vanadalism by Flybd5

Stop reverting grammar and typo corrections and removing citations. This is vandalism. YOU DO NOT OWN THIS ARTICLE! You have been reported for vandalism. If you read the changes done to this article you will see that the article has been corrected. Removing citations and productive changes to an article is considered vandalism. I will revert changes. Please read Wikipedia's boards on article ownership.--XLR8TION 17:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

• You've been making threats and harassing me for days now. You posted reports in WP:PAIN and got your tail handed to you on a plate for doing so. I told you, take your ego somewhere else. This isn't about the article being mine or anyone else's. You're making changes out of spite, not because you want to improve the content. That doesn't add anything to do the quality of the article. Flybd5 17:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I have not been making threats. You have reverted countless time of typo corrections and grammatical improvements. I have even listed citations from a West Indian newspaper, and you have deleted that! Have you read the article BEFORE you made the changes?? Apparently not! Constructive edits and improvements is not vandalism. Wikipedia policy states that no article belongs to no one. However, when it is apparent that edits that lower the quality of an article and does not improve it in any way, editors can take action to edit and bring it to par with other well-written articles. Have you read any of my articles on-line? You will clearly see that my edits and writing bring improvement. I have answered many open calls to clean-up articles and bring it to acceptable reading. Is that considered vandalism in your book? When it is apparent that someone is clearly disregarding edits without even taking a second to read the changes, then to anyone that is considered vandalism. --XLR8TION 17:46, 24 DeceI endorsing one version over another. I have added this article on my watchlist and I shall be involving myself in it's continued improvement.

Flybd5, I first must admonish you for your behavior here. In your blind reverts you were removing legitimate edits. For example, the first time the name of the article appears in the text it should be bolded. (See WP:MOS#Article_titles)

XLR8TION, your behavior was unacceptable as well. You let your anger blind you to the fact that some of your changes were simply wrong. For example, official titles should be capitalised. (see WP:MOS#Titles)

So what do we do moving forward? This article will remain protected for the short term. I'll implement any agreed upon changes. ---J.S ^(T/C) 18:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

• JS, if you look at my overall edits to this article you can clearly see that Flybd5 is truly not a legit editor if he continues to revert edits without even taking a look at them. Upon request, I can provide you examples of articles I have improved, written, or even edited considerably and you can clearly see that my edits were never labeled as vandalism by any editors/administrators in the past. I have even listed citations from a Jamaican newspaper, and Flybd5 continues to remove them, which clearly is a sign of vandalism. Let's take a look at a sentence written by Flybd5:

"The subject of suspects being charged in absentia has been a very controversial topic in legal circles in Puerto Rico, ever since the Puerto Rican Supreme Court ruled such a practice was legal as long as the prosecution undertook reasonable attempts to locate the defendant."

Obviously this is a poorly written sentence and it is way too long. I edited to read:

"The subject of suspects being charged in absentia has been a very controversial topic in legal circles in Puerto Rico. The Puerto Rican Supreme Court ruled such a practice was legal as long as the prosecution undertook reasonable attempts to locate the defendant."

Clearly this sentence should be split in two sentences. Furthermore, I have listed a citation request because Flybd5 never provided any reference (e.g. year, resolution, case study, etc.) of why this practice is legal.

I can provide other extreme examples of poor grammar and typos upon request. Please review my history as there is a trail and you or anyone else will see that my edits were legit edits. Many thanks for your assistance and Happy Holidays!--XLR8TION 18:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

• I have no problem with the article being locked. That's specifically what I requested in WP:PAIN, so that edits that followed a period of conflict would have to go through some sort of arbiter. Some of XL8RTION's edits were proper, some were wrong. I didn't want to have to go through the multiple edits and have this user harass me again. That's why I specifically requested the lock. I got what I wanted, to stop the wild edits and force XLR8TION to post here and have changes discussed first. Flybd5 04:12, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

You a published writer! LOL, Listen comic books or writing for Swank magazine doesn't really count as published work. If you are the original writer of the article, may I suggest renting the film Grease 2 and singing to the opening the song. You will understand. LOL, Gosh, Cholito is dead but you can replace him as the island's biggest joker, Fly. LMAO! --XLR8TION 03:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

First book -- Dataflex Developer's Guide, ISBN 0915381907, published 1988. Any other questions? What have you published, sonny? The Ultimate Guide to Iris Chacon? :D Flybd5 16:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposing a change - bolding name

Per the MOS, I'd like to make this change:

From

Pedro Juan Rosselló González [pronounced “roh-say-YO”] (born April 5, 1944)

To

Pedro Juan Rosselló González [pronounced “roh-say-YO”] (born April 5, 1944)

That is following typical MOS recommendations. Is that acceptable to everyone? ---J.S ^(T/C) 18:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The pronounciation thingy should be replaced, though... there's some kind of template or category for that. It should use the international phonetic alphabet. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 18:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I have done this in the past however without taking a look Flybd5 continues to vandalize the page by reverting it to a standard, non-bold format. --XLR8TION 18:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

XLR8TION, keep it civil please. I assume you support the change I'm proposeing? ---J.S ^(T/C) 18:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely JS, and I am being civil. Flybd5 is the only person who has reverted my edits. I have not said anything that would instigate this situation. Would it be appropriate for me to use a pronoun when referring to the unjust edits by Flybd5? Please advise.--XLR8TION 18:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Preferrably, you should not mention Flybd5 or Flybd5's edits at all - they are not relevant to discussion at all. Stay cool when the editing gets hot, and you'll find that Pedro Rosselló will be a great article in no time. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 19:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Jobjorn, thanks for your advice. You made a good point when you said that both the user and his edits are not relevant at all in this forum. I agree wholeheartedly. Now, in regards to reverting my constructive edits, what is the process or timeline that the constructive edits will be analyzed and validated as legit edits.Happy Holidays!--XLR8TION 22:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome. I further suggest that you simply yourself propose edits here on the talk page. That way, we can just agree to them, and J.S can go ahead with them if there doesn't seem to be any problem with them. You may also want to remember that there is no deadline. Happy holidays! Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 22:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Jobjorn, thansk for your feedback. I will copy and paste the before and after versions of what I edited so that you can analyze my edits. There are about three sections, therefore I will start a new topic divider to illustrate. --XLR8TION 22:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

That was practically unreadable. If you are just going to propose changes you have already made in the past, just provide diffs. If not, remember to include wikimarkup such as '''bolded text''' and [[wikilinks]]. Thank you! Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 23:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Joborn, can you provide me with an explanation on how to provide diffs to you. Have never done this before because I have never had any complaints about my edits in the past.--XLR8TION 23:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

See what I wikilinked in my previous comment - WP:DIFF. In short, a "diff" is something that looks quite like this! Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 23:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Joborn, Here you go [1]. --XLR8TION 23:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I see no problem with that edit, and I agree that it should be remade. J.S, what do you think? Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 00:02, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

There are several problems with the proposed change (which is why I reverted it several times). Vieques, Puerto Rico is the correct wiki page for the island. Vieques generates a redirect. Wiki policy specifically states that political titles should be capitalized. Changing "chose so in a referendum" to "decided to choose so in a referendum" is very, very poor grammar; the "decided to choose so" is redundant. Changing "Nevertheless, Rosselló maintains he was unaware of the illegal activities taking place while he was in power." to "Regardless, Rosselló maintains he was unaware of any illegal activities taking place while he was in power." is incorrect. The paragraph mentions specific acts for which members of his cabinet were incarcerated. XLR8TION's edits ignore the context of the article. The sentence emphasizes the point that Rosselló has denied knowledge of the criminal acts for which members of his administration were convicted. The documents from Harvard and Notre Dame which show Rosselló was not working in PR but rather playing tennis are not "academic-related" documents. The pension Rosselló is accused of fraudulently increasing to $50k+ was not originally "nearly" $25k, it was more than that, hence "roughly." Rather than making an incorrect change, he should research the subject and find the exact number. Rosselló is returning from VIENNA, Virginia (where he has a home), not from Virginia, generically. This came directly from his attorney, and XLR8TION has no business at all changing this. As you can see, my reverts were not done blindly, and saying that they are akin to vandalism is completely absurd. Flybd5 04:29, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

While those are good points, they only at most half of the edits made in the provided diff. Do you have a problem with, in example, changing On December 15, 2006 Senator Rossello was charged with counts of fraud regarding his retirement pension. to On December 15, 2006 Senator Rossello was charged with several counts of fraud relating to his retirement pension.? Or the edits made under the section Vieques controversy (see the diff), except the change to "decided to choose"? Or the change from Bush to George W. Bush? Other than that, I agree with you. Wikilink George W. Bush too. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 04:43, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

If the context of the changes were a normal situation, I would not have a problem, because there would be additional interaction that would ensure differences would be worked out in order to achieve a better quality article through cooperation. The problem is that any challenge to any of XLR8TION's changes results in a slew of insults and harassment. I didn't feel like dealing with that, so I took the route that would most quickly lead to a lock and stop the issue, and XLR8TION, cold in his tracks. In other words, the choice was either a protracted edit war fueled by his ego, or a lock and a route that would force discussion here before any further changes that could affect the quality of the article. I chose the path that would protect the article and minimize any further conflict. Flybd5 05:16, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

While undeniably effective, next time I would advise you to try some other ways: such as Wikipedia:Third opinion. Or simply WP:COOL - leave the article for a bit, let XLR8TION do his changes, and clean it up after a week or so. I think it is quite clear that neither of you are vandals, you just don't... get together very well. Anyhow, deliberately planning a protection in order to minimize further conflict just doesn't work: the conflict here is amazing. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 05:29, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

It's either an "undeniably effective" action or it "just doesn't work," but not both. I'll take the former and go back to the Xmas party. :) Flybd5 05:39, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Please provide citations. How do you know he lives in Vienna? He could live in Arlington or Fairfax, however without a citation a neutral POV would to be use Virginia. You do not cite source therefore it is word of mouth. If anyone wanted to read a word of mouth article that is why Internet blogs are for. Wikipedia is a tool to benefit many and without citations writers are providing baseless information. A house can not stand without a base, and the same goes for an article. Please provide citations or else the article will revert to a neutral state. Period. --XLR8TION 04:47, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

It is common knowledge here in Puerto Rico that Rosselló has a home in Vienna. If you don't know that, and felt a cite was needed, the correct route was to request one, which I would have provided. But since you react to any challenge to your edits with insults, I simply reverted your edits, period. Flybd5 05:16, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Though, that International English Wikipedia does not reside in Puerto Rico. It should not have been taken for granted that everyone knew that, however, demanding a citation is quite harsh. Nevertheless, now there is a citation, and everyone is happy! Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 05:29, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Flybd5 05:39, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no need to be childish, XLR8TION! Demanding a citation for such a trivial fact is quite pointless, in my opinion. However; here is a citation on that one (Rosselló living in Vienna, that is). Do you have any further counter-arguments against the arguments put forth by Flybd5, or can we go on with these changes? Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 04:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Jobjorn, not being childish at all. Afterall I did not revert the article after many constructive edits were made. That would be Flybd5. If you can provide the citation, than the house will stand. What is your opinion on my grammatical edits. --XLR8TION 05:01, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Your grammatical edits have been adressed, a bunch of them criticized by Flybd5 above - criticism I agreed with - and another bunch of them defended by me above. Also, a citation has been provided for the Vienna statement - is there anything more you think would require citation? Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 05:11, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Jobjorn, thank you for your reply. I noticed maybe one or two words that were combined that should be apart. Other than that, I will review the article's grammar and make constructive edits throughout the week. If I have any problems with any editors who revert my constructive edits and childlishley label them as vandalism, I will shoot shoot you a line. The article needs some cleanup and I am willing to take up that challenge. Once again, thank you for your assistance!--XLR8TION 05:16, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh I forgot to wish you Happy Holidays Jobjorn! Thanks for your assistance. Heading to bed soon but will start working on edits very shortly. Merry Christmas! --XLR8TION 05:24, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I will point out once again (and for the last time) that any editors have the right to challenge any of your edits, period. If you respond with vitriol and personal attacks, rather than with cooperation and civility, you will be taken to task as many times as is considered necessary, with what you have already seen are the consequences. Flybd5 05:22, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Now, now! Take it easy. First of all, Flybd5 has presented proper criticism against your (XLR8TION's) edits - criticism you have not yet responded too. Secondly, the article is still protected - you CAN'T clean up the article. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 05:29, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Jobjorn, I have answered all criticisms. I fixed up his poor command of the English language and grammar, reduced extremely long sentences into two; I also added citation links and inform the editor that POV, speculation, and Word of Mouth do not make an article stand. Furthermore, I have made sections look much more articulate and have reduced the usage of poor choice words that clearly are wrong for this article. For example, pre-emptive referendum????? A referendum was held prior to a federally-sponsored referendum. Pre-emptive sounds like the basis for the Iraq War. Too much CNN and too little of Webster's usually causes that. Jobjorn, take a look at the sentence structure his use of possessive punctuation {the "senator role" to ""senator's role"), his inability to list how many charges he was charged with in the opening paragraph. Furthermore, his unbolding of the name at the begining of that section, his phrase "after a two year retirement" (retirement usually means someone is permanently done with a job; the phrase should read "after a two year absence from politics"). Clearly the article needs a good revamping or it will appear that someone from grade school or an ESL class wrote it. --XLR8TION 05:38, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, brother. You can't even figure out how to determine what was authored or changed by whom, and you claim to be god's gift to this article??? Half of what you posted above is POV! This is so absurd it's hilarious. Reminds me of Plan 9 From Outer Space. Flybd5 05:44, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Jobjorn, yet another personal attack by Flybd5. Apparently his command of English is from movies. Please read my edits and you will see that my edits brought new life to an otherwise poorly written and constructed article. --XLR8TION 05:49, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

No, XLR8TION, you have not. I quote:

There are several problems with the proposed change (which is why I reverted it several times). Vieques, Puerto Rico is the correct wiki page for the island. Vieques generates a redirect. Wiki policy specifically states that political titles should be capitalized. Changing "chose so in a referendum" to "decided to choose so in a referendum" is very, very poor grammar; the "decided to choose so" is redundant. Changing "Nevertheless, Rosselló maintains he was unaware of the illegal activities taking place while he was in power." to "Regardless, Rosselló maintains he was unaware of any illegal activities taking place while he was in power." is incorrect. The paragraph mentions specific acts for which members of his cabinet were incarcerated. XLR8TION's edits ignore the context of the article. The sentence emphasizes the point that Rosselló has denied knowledge of the criminal acts for which members of his administration were convicted. The documents from Harvard and Notre Dame which show Rosselló was not working in PR but rather playing tennis are not "academic-related" documents. The pension Rosselló is accused of fraudulently increasing to $50k+ was not originally "nearly" $25k, it was more than that, hence "roughly." Rather than making an incorrect change, he should research the subject and find the exact number. Rosselló is returning from VIENNA, Virginia (where he has a home), not from Virginia, generically. This came directly from his attorney, and XLR8TION has no business at all changing this. As you can see, my reverts were not done blindly, and saying that they are akin to vandalism is completely absurd. Flybd5 04:29, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

That has not been answered. However, it is my humble suggestion that both of you take a Pedro Rosslló-break for a week or so, and then come back to see how it is improved. Do you hear me? The editing is clearly hot here, stay cool when the editing gets hot. Come back in a week and we will see what J.S. and I have fixed up. Remember, there is no deadline. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 17:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Deja vu. I quote from my post to XLR8TION's talk page... "You have already been blocked once in the last week, and had all your so-called "harassment" and "threat" reports dismissed. Do yourself a favor and leave the Pedro Rossello article alone already. Give your ego a rest. It is Christmas Eve, go spend it with your family and friends and stop provoking incidents. When you've calmed down, then come back to the article's discussion area." As you said, the method was undeniably effective, and you reached the same conclusion as I! I don't have a problem leaving things alone for a week, I've been travelling and teaching quite a bit in December and just want to relax. Thanks, Jobjörn. Happy Holidays. :) Flybd5 17:23, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Jobjorn and JS, I will come back a week later to make any new edits. I will print the page and make hand edits to grammar and sentence structure while the article is locked. I won't answer to the child editor's immature ranting and ignorance and therefore will only conversate with both of you since you are have a great sense of thinking and are reasonable administators who are very dedicated in promoting the site's long-term goals and vision. It's apparent that the other editor is trying to emulate my approach in my conversations which you and therefore it only proves he lacks originality. Thank you for your valuable time and effort and if you have any questions JS or Jobjorn, please don't hesitate to contact me directly! --XLR8TION 02:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Somebody pass the popcorn. <chuckle> I know who you are, Luis. You were born about the time I graduated from high school. By the time you graduated from college in Winter Park just a few years ago, I had been a published author for more than a decade. Rest assured you are in no position to call me a child, but if you insist, what the heck, knock yourself out. You certainly are entertaining, I'll give you that much, but you really do need to control your temper. Flybd5 04:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh man, you are old! :O However, that doesn't say much - you're not very good at controlling your temper either, or you would just ignore him. For the record, I'm 18 years old. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 08:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

When you get a little older you'll understand the difference between anger and amusement, Jobjörn. <grin> The distinction is particularly difficult when the medium is the electronic page, which is as flat as Texas! I've been online for more than 21 years. Does that make me old, ancient, prehistoric, or ?? XLR8TION is just another hotheaded Hispanic kid with more emotions than common sense. He's clearly capable of generating good thought, but he lets his ego get in the way too often, and that waters down the quality. I see them all the time, especially since I live right in front of a high school full of them. Some of them evolve into men, some don't. It's just a matter of time. You seem to have made the leap rather early. I am impressed. :D Flybd5 13:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

No denying, you are clearly teasing him - whether you are aware of it or not, I am not sure. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 15:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

• I don't wish to endorse anyone's point of view in this dispute, but I believe this article should be unblocked immedietly. It has been locked for far too long and the dispute does not necesarly require it to be locked since there is no clear and present danger regarding massive vandalisms.<<Coburn_Pharr>> 02:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Not quite "teasing." Maybe "toying" is more accurate, because it implies entertainment value. :D Flybd5 17:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

• I have to question the neutrality of this article since many of the things it claims are what the opposing party to the PNP has said. Sure some of the things were decided by judges in courts but it doesn't matter since they were under control of the PPD and the law interpretation went according to them. I am talking especially about the problem with Rosselló being a resident of Virginia and not Puerto Rico, the supposed law that made "pivazo" votes legal which is backed here entirely by what the PPD said, and the sentence that says Rosselló was charged December 15th, when he clearly was not charged at all, and since December 28th has been cleared.

(I broke this off into it's own section to make responding easyer...) If you can find sources, we would apreciate it... but we are limited by what is printed in newspapers and court documents. (yes, the winner gets tto write the history book) ---J.S ^(T/C) 19:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Rosselló himself claimed to be a resident of Virginia in tax returns he filed for income in Puerto Rico. He specifically chose to report that he was not a resident of Puerto Rico. At the time he was living in Virginia, had applied for a driver's license there and had also registered to vote in Virginia, which requires a signed sworn statement that the applicant is a resident of that state, on penalty of law. The issue with the criminal charges against him has not been cleared, it has been appealed according to rule 6 of the PR Criminal Code. The request to find probable cause will be heard again on January 24 with a different judge. Everything that has been posted is 100% factual and backed up with cites. This is not a matter of the winner writing the history book. This is a matter of history documenting the winners. Flybd5 20:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem here is that he was never charged in December 15th with criminal charges, therefore the sentence that says he was charged should be removed. They were going to do so, but then post-poned it to December 28th, and finally there were no charges made since no cause for arrest was determined. It doesn't matter if the decision will be appealed again in a month, you have to say in the article what is currently the situation, which is he is free and inocent, until proven guilty.

Your logic is incorrect. The act of asking a judge to find probable cause for arrest specifically requires the filing of charges and evidence to support them. There has been no "finally" in this case -- the decision of the first judge has been appealed already (not next month) and the appeal has been granted. A second hearing has been granted and will be seen by a new judge, so it is far from over and the charges remain until the appeal is resolved. That will most likely happen Jan 24, at which time Rosselló will either be arrested on criminal charges, or the charges will be dismissed. If they are dismissed, there is no further appeal possible.Flybd5 23:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Unprotected

I have unprotected this article.

If any further bad-faith reverting of legitimate edits is done, I will block. That means if you don't feel like going though and fixing one or two edits amongst a bunch of good ones, don't revert the entire batch. ---J.S ^(T/C) 02:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I have just done exactly that. As long as Luis controls his temper, there should be no issues. Happy Holidays! :) Flybd5 16:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

J.Smith, user XLR8TION is doing the same thing all over again. Now he's made a reversal, but noted it as if it were a small change. Someone needs to put a stop to this idiocy on his part. Flybd5 04:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

JS, many thanks for your time and effort. Truly appreciate your mediation in resolving this episode. --XLR8TION 03:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

New personal Section

Information relating to his wife (and any roles she had in the private sector and as First Lady) should be added. In addition, any info on his children and their names should be included. The article seems incomplete without this info.--XLR8TION 19:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Documenting that he has a family is one thing, and I agree as long as the section is limited to that, but any details on the roles Maga Rosselló played as a public figure should go in a separate article in order to respect the fact that she is a separate person, and not just the spouse of a politician. There is much precedent to support a separate article -- note that every US First Lady has her own article, rather than just a mention under her husband's page. See Laura Bush, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Betty Ford, Nancy Reagan, etc. The same should apply to their children, though it is my impression that they shun the public limelight. Flybd5 20:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Here is a link with his sons' names [2]. I don't what year he married his wife, but his wife has been pretty much just like Laura Bush has been since her husband took office: highly in active. Unlike the present-day First Lady of Puerto Rico who has adopted many projects involving children, Maga was seen by many as "window dressing" at her husband's rallies. Unlike Hillary Clinton, Betty Ford, and Eleanor Roosevelt (highly active First Ladies) unless there is detail history of her activities as First Lady, I don't think that a full article for her is necessary. Those are my two cents. --XLR8TION 02:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Maga wasn't exactly the model of the hyperactive first lady, in that we agree, but she did participate and lead a number of programs during her husband's term of office. Certainly a page for her qualifies under the notability guidelines for Wikipedia, which specifically state that the decision of whether an article presents a notable issue is not a question of subjective analysis. Flybd5 23:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

An article on Maga Rosselló wouldn't be a bad idea... and it gives us a better way to organize the information... we would just need to be sure her article would survive an AFD. (Ie, establish notability outside of her connection to her husband) ---J.S ^(T/C) 00:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The easiest way to accomplish that is for someone to contact the person who acted as her personal secretary when she was First Lady, and see if that person can provide enough information about her activities during her husband's term of office. I don't have the time to do that, however. Flybd5 18:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Senate and NPP rift

In order to "aspire" to be Senate president, the current incumbent would have to be "removed". The comment about the six "auténtico" senators making a coalition with PDP senators is impermissible POV. On occasions, some of Rosselló's Senate faction have coalesced with the PDP minority to win votes. For example, had three of his supporters not voted to confirm the PDP's Attorney General, the nomination would have failed by one vote. Another example is last June 25 when they joined to try to violate the NPP platform's opposition to discharging important bills while attempting to prematurely pass the House bill creating the Northeast Ecological Corridor which was later approved on Aug. 30 with a report and amendments. Because Rosselló is an active politician currently campaigning for office, we should all strive to keep this article extremely fact-based. Pr4ever 03:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Charges related to Pension

This section needs to be updated with the final ruling of the Court. I will try to look for newspaper sources, but if someone has access to ADENDI (Archivo Electrónico de El Nuevo Dia) will get this information sooner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MissCurie (talk • contribs) 07:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Retirement, return and election results (1999-2004)

The following sentences are clearly biased and use non-neutral language:

"The Health Department could not find any records of his "Summer Jobs", stating how could he be at two places at the same time, as he were some type of "god" and denied him his false claim. Roselló alleged that the Government burned these "Summer Jobs" records and continued to push his claim. The Secretary of Justice at that time, Roberto Sanchez Ramos, indicted him for perjury and presenting a false claim and the case was brought up to three Roselló appointed Judges, and not all three had the guts to take him to court and dropped the charges."

Did the Health Department claim he was some type of god? That sounds unlikely. Needs a source. Also, the statement that none of the 3 judges had "the guts" to take him to court is clearly the opinion of the author. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.97.110.54 (talk) 16:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit by User:Pol098

Reverting THIS edit by User:Pol098. There is consensus that the long-standing wording with the description "Puerto Rican" should be kept. It is supported by at least five editors: THIS EDITOR, THIS EDTOR THIS EDITOR, THIS EDITOR, and THIS EDITOR. The disagreeing anonymous editor Was Blocked (UPDATED) for edit warring and "for pushing his own POV agenda". Mercy11 (talk) 19:35, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I have no particular position on this issue. As there was dissension and edit warring between "American" and "Puerto Rican" I thought that the following wording might be a compromise that all could agree on:

Pedro Juan Rosselló González, (Spanish pronunciation: [roseˈʎo]; born April 5, 1944 in San Juan, the capital of Puerto Rico, an unincorporated territory of the United States), is a physician and politician who served...".

If there is further conflict this appears to me to be both accurate and NPOV, and others may wish to use it as a basis; but I am not going to intervene further. Pol098 (talk) 19:44, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Puerto Rico Political System and the "U.S." Suffix.

Puerto Rico is a U.S. Commowealth since 1952 and a U.S. Territory since 1898. Puerto Rico is not a country (Federal Republic), it does not has a President nor it is a country member of the United Nations. There is a user called Mercy11 (Mercy11) who keeps taking the "U.S." Suffix from the Governors birthplace. It is indispensable that the people get the correct information and know why they are Governors and not "Presidents". The U.S. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico only has a Governor and a Statewide Government. Since 1917 Every person born in Puerto Rico is a Natural U.S. Citizen, which is why it is indispensable that the "U.S." Suffix appear at the birthplace of the Governors of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiSoldier86 (talk • contribs) 02:26, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

• This discussion has been moved to HERE. Mercy11 (talk) 03:51, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Edits by WikiSoldier86 seeking to specify "U.S." after place of birth

This subject is under discussion at [3]. Please go THERE if you wish to join the discussion. Mercy11 (talk) 15:11, 23 June 2014 (UTC)