User talk:Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr.

Welcome!

Hello, Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr., and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!  Ryan shell (talk) 16:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Kingdom of Sugbo, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kingdom of Sugbo. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Richard Cavell (talk) 15:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article you created, Kingdom_of_Sugbo is about to be deleted from Wikipedia.

There is an ongoing debate about whether your article should be deleted here:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kingdom_of_Sugbo.

The faster your respond, the better chance the article you created can be saved. This is because deletion debates only stay open for a few days, and the first comments are usually the most important.

There are several tools and other editors who can help you keep the page from being deleted forever:

1. You can list the page up for deletion on Article Rescue Squadron. If you need help listing your page, add a comment on the Article Rescue Squadron talk page.
2. You can request a mentor to help explain to you all of the complex rules that editors use to get a page deleted, here: Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User. But don't wait for a mentor to respond on the deletion page.
   
3. When try to delete a page, veteran editors love to use a lot of rule acronyms. Don't let these acronyms intimidate you.
   Here is a list of your own acronyms you can use yourself: WP:Deletion debate acronyms which may support the page you created being kept.
   Acronyms in deletion debates are sometimes incorrectly used, or ignore rules or exceptions.
4. You can merge the article into a larger article.

If your page is deleted, you still have many options available. Good luck! travb (talk) 18:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are making changes to the Philippines which are sourced to a site, but you are changing the information and making it look as if the source is supporting your edit. You will have to provide another source. I'm reverting your edit till you do it right. AnyPerson (talk) 03:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph of this edit is changing what the Stanford source is saying. AnyPerson (talk) 03:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't call me boy. Keep the tone of our discussion civil. Don't make demands. Don't change a sourced cite unless you can prove that the source says what you are claiming it says. AnyPerson (talk) 03:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The matter of civility goes to your assault on editor Tedickey's Talk page. The abusive language and tone you employ there is entirely inappropriate, no matter how passionately you feel about your position. You're going to have to learn to cool down if you want to accomplish anything here on Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia:Civility, think about it, and take it seriously. If you don't, as I say, you're going to find it impossible to get anything you want done.

Next, you need to understand that simply because a fact is (a) important and (b) sourced, that does not mean that it belongs in every possible article it has any relevance to. United States is an overview article on a country that has to treat all sorts of important matters in extremely summary style. World War I gets two sentences. The Korean War gets one. And so forth. If you look at how the entire article is structured and written, you will see that the focus you want to bring to the Philippine-American War is way out of proportion to the space given comparably important subjects. So, the edit you want to make will almost certainly never be agreed to by a consensus of involved editors, which is how things get done here when there are disagreements.

Now, there are two things you can do. First, you could take a look at all of the topical articles that could possibly use more on this important subject: There's History of the United States (1865–1918). There's Overseas expansion of the United States. There's Military history of the United States. Second, you could propose an edit that would add perhaps a potently worded phrase, at the most a sentence to the existing passage in the overview article. It may or not be accepted, but it's certainly worth a shot; but again, if you argue for it the way you chose to address Tedickey, any proposal you make will certainly not be accepted. That's what you have to understand in order to be effective in a collaborative environment like Wikipedia. Best of luck.—DCGeist (talk) 09:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an acceptable edit summary. Please keep your tone civil. Vicenarian ^{(Said · Done)} 21:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your work on the Philippines article.--23prootie (talk) 12:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

23prootie has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Hello. Philippines has been protected by a protecting admin upon request and due to edit war. He receommended here to solve any dispute on the page, but that is only available to admins. Sky Harbor said here on the other hand, to list down and discuss possible disputes on Philippines' talk page which caused edit war. Cheers!--JL 09 _^q?c 23:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. An outdated view about Philippine history. Some people think the states of the prehispanic Philippines were only chief-dooms instead of real kingdoms. A view which have been printed in "cannon" textbooks and propogated to people but which recent archeological findings have proved false. As proven by the Butuan Silver Strip, Laguna Copperplate Inscription, The Sung historical annals and the Tarsillas of the Sultanates of Sulu and Maguindanao. Information not "popular" a couple of years ago. Unfortunately "some" people still cling to these old views and thats why they continue to revert my new updated work.

2. Just doubt. They doubt the legitimacy of my sources cause they have been indoctrinated in the old ways. Something which, a simple grasping of my sources can solve but these people can't seem to get it.

Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 13:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually its was thought in grade school that we traded with our Asian neighbors and that we possessed a relatively sophisticated civilization. Even the Katipunan and Rizal knew that with their use of Alibata. It's only Westerners and Westernized Filipinos who think we're mangmang.--23prootie (talk) 18:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Though your ideas seem to be great, you have to provide reference/s in any way. Previous editions of the article Philippines with no citations pushed Boxedor to rewrite it the way he liked it. You must also preserve neutrality of the article about a subject. Remember that this is not the first time when Philippines was vandalised by angry users. Resolving conflicts such as that will help the article cope through owning it.--JL 09 _^q?c 23:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although your intention might be good (or bad) one must not make any editions without any sources and ample evidence and circumspect to support your claim. And one must not corrupt the data with your own biases. Just like the way how a certain editor, completely rehashed all my work. Originally I wrote that Rajah Sri Bata Shaja and Lord-Minister Jayadewa were a King and Lord repectively (As proven in the articles about them and from Book and Internet referneces I cited in the article) but He merely concluded that Rajah: Sri Bata Shaja was a Datu! When "Rajah" means king! He also reduced Jayadewa the Lord-Minister of 900s Tondo into a mere cheiftain and rewrote the entire thing without citing one insy winsy book or article to support that. It's insulting for the researchers and translators of these ancient documents to have their research nullified and the noble and glorious Kings and Lords of the past to be reduced to mere Cheiftains. That's why im vehemently defending the article from unscientific bias.

Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 04:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Confederation of Madya-as, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.--JL 09 _^q?c 13:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huge copy-pasting[edit]

Hello. I noticed the great edits you made to Confederation of Madya-as. When I was reading the page, I found that it was a substantial plagiarism of a website known as Akeanon. In order for you to save the article for bot search and speedy deletion as criteria for copyright violation, I suggest you as soon as possible to revise the article immediately so that it does not appear to be a copy violation of Akeanon. Furthermore, use many sources as possible. And don't paste huge chunks of information in the article that was copy-pasted from another website.--JL 09 _^q?c 13:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PR[edit]

You can see the peer review requested by me for the article. You can edit it so that it can't be classified as plagiarism. Read it here. Look what you can do so that it can't be a plagiarism according to Wikipedia rules.--JL 09 _^q?c 11:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr.. You have new messages at JL 09's talk page.
Message added 14:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

JL 09 _^q?c 14:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr.. You have new messages at Lambanog's talk page.
Message added 12:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Lambanog (talk) 12:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:File:LagunaCopperplateInscriptionPicture.gif. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. JL 09 _^q?c 07:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Paoay Church Philippines Sideview.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. ZooFari 06:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:File:SurigaoGarudaDaggerHandle.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. JL 09 _^q?c 17:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Lazaro Macapagal. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lazaro Macapagal. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 11:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Medal from the Order of Lakandula.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. JL 09 _^q?c 01:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I am concerned, I don;t want to join the discussion in Philippines regarding some section editing, but issues gone tougher and too bad to ignore.

You said on this link that a consensus has been achieved, so there is a rightful cause to restore points. As a counter, here is a copy of the discussion here that does nor support your claim:

Here, Elockid mentioned that no consensus has been achieved. But you replied that he must abide with the edits you and Lambanog did that seems to be right, and if it is right, then a consensus was reached and agreed to restore edits done by you.

As what WP:CONSENSUS wanted to point out, here is a simple but useful flowchart on to determine whether a consensus has been made:

This policy says that if editors did not remove your edits regarding the page, then this is a simple showing that it was accepted by opposing editors. It also says that if editors removed edits done by yours, then there is something wrong regarding that insertion that qualifies an explanation. In this sense, JCRB, Elockid and others did their job to explain why insertion and expansion of the sections are wrong.

Finally, as what the policy goes on, if their is a behaviour of "repeatedly inserting the same content when other contributors are rejecting it", then that means that it may lead to blocking or limiting your user rights.

Next, as what civility pillar wanted to say, that either direct or indirect rudeness may be followed by appropriate administrative actions. For example, you inserted the following comments:

• Are you silly or something?
• WE HAVE ALREADY REACHED A CONSENSUS LAST TIME (-- where is that consensus? If two or more editors agreed with an issue, then that what consensus comes in. Sarek of Vulcan also reminds you, through the talk page, that he can't see any consensus.)
• ...spewed forth from their bowels
• Now, shall we have a new consensus? (Closing a consensus without citing agreements from factions is really, really bad, especially if there is an issue standing. At this moment, there is no agreement yet, but you tend to say that there is.)
• Im sorry but thats something you should accept. (Remember, this is not a war of the worlds)

Citing dominant policies, it is true that continuing incivility and edit warring (per WP:CONS) may lead to blocking, or any appropriate action. Thanks.--JL 09 _^q?c 14:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Request for clarification: consensus and insertion of information on Philippines and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requesting Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks,--JL 09 _^q?c 14:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last absolute warning before I request an administrator to block you for your disruptive editing and continued incivility or some sanction against your disruptive behavior. You have continued to revert without any consensus citing extremely poor examples to justify your reverts and poor reasoning to why we should accept your version. No one said that your version was better. You asked us to compare. Nowhere did anyone say that yours was better. Just about everyone in form or another rejected your version. This is disruptive and it's clear that you're exhausting all our patience. SarekOfVulcan already said you failed to show consensus and that you have problems with claiming consensus. This is no different. If you revert one more time, you can consider yourself reported which will most likely result you in being blocked from editing. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 04:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey that's alright, as long as you provide references or sources to support your statements, that's ok. Always, remember Wikipedia is "not" a place for advertisement, it is place for educational purposes, alright. -talk WikiDak 8 December 11:20 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Philippines, you may be blocked from editing. — JL 09 ^{talk (site)}_contribs    14:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:UglyFilipina.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article Butuan Silver Paleograph has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Nothing I can find in Google, lexis/nexis.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:12, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw, I am Mediran and it such my pleasure on meeting another Filipino Wikipedian. --Mediran ^talk 03:11, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Philippines, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Zamboanga (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:24, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Manila, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Liberal, Filipino and Nascent (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:03, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that you are edit warring in Manila. Editing using IPs ALSO counts and you have been reverted by multiple editors. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked. Elockid^(Boo!) 14:17, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You must discuss the changes you want that are being reverted on the talk page and get consensus. If you continue to edit war when reverted by other editors you will be blocked. Dougweller (talk) 06:47, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Elockid^(Boo!) 15:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Drmies (talk) 00:52, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Iloilo City, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Columbia and Jaro (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you made a comment that you want to keep the article, Big Four international beauty pageants in its talk page. Please share your thoughts on the matter at this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page. Click it here--Richie Campbell (talk) 13:50, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Zabag kingdom, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Apo and Lingayen (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Manila, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page British (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Hey man, how've you been? Easy772 (talk) 02:04, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Confederation of Madja-as

added a link pointing to Ati

Philippines

added a link pointing to Ati

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:31, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who has edited the article Asian American this year, I am seeking your input on a proposed change to remove a reference to epicanthic eyefolds. This topic has prompted discussion in 2009, 2010 and most recently in 2013.

There's a fine line between being WP:BOLD and subverting WP:CONSENSUS. Given the history of this topic, I'm hoping that a robust discussion, for the record, would improve the article whether this reference stays or goes. Ishu (talk) 13:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Latin American Asian, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Spanish, Filipino and Colombians. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contribution. However, the section that you are trying to insert is more about Brunei, and the length of such article is gives an impression that it is meant to give more importance to Brunei rather than to the Madja-as Confederacy. Please note that the article is about the Madja-as Confederacy. You might probably wish to consider placing the section in another article about Brunei. Anyway, the war between the Confederacy and Brunei was already mentioned in the previous section.

Also, you could have probably refined your research (add more credible sources, check grammar, and style of writing and length of text, etc.) before contributing it in the article, in order to give a more relevant addition.--Sulbud (talk) 09:12, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your theory about the Visayan-Brunei people seems interesting. However, the article that was inserted is not well-presented. It needs to be developed, i.e., given more scientific references, and logical presentation. It was transferred to the talk page of the article for improvement. Please help in this regard if you are willing. --Sulbud (talk) 12:21, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Luzon page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Philippines, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Subic. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:34, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know that you have somehow edited beauty pageant articles before. At this time, the annual articles are being proposed for deletion due to lack of sources and they started to all the annual editions of Miss Earth 2001 to Miss Earth 2015. The annual articles for Miss International, Miss World and Miss Universe will be proposed for deletion too. However, the Miss Earth articles are currently being discussed for deletion HERE. What's your take/thoughts on this? I would like to participate in the AfD once I get your opinion.--Richie Campbell (talk) 22:27, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:History of the Philippines#Aztecs which involves this past edit by you. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:17, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Filipinos, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Geographic. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:22, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever these service awards for, they certainly don't include use. I see you have made fewer than 2000 edits in more 8 years, including deletions. 112.198.68.203 (talk) 23:23, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for recognizing my services duration. Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 07:32, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:Ma-i#huang vs. wang. Please contribute to discussion there. Thanks. 12:48, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

Hello, Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Battle of Manila (1570), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sulaiman (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition to Caboloan has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:59, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This also applies to the following articles:

• Battle of Manila (1405)
• Military history of the Philippines
• Philippines
• History of the Philippines. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:01, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr.. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ethnic groups in the Philippines, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mexican (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:41, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Mactan Hindu Ganesha Statue, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Hitro talk 07:37, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mactan Hindu Ganesha Statue, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

DGG ( talk ) 10:09, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, I will look into it more and provide credible historical sources when I have more spare time. Thanks. Jhlletras (talk) 09:36, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr.,

Thanks for creating Battle of Manila (1405)! I edit here too, under the username Rosguill and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:-

The article needs more sources in order to verify its claims.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Rosguill}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

_signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:50, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Philippines, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ding (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. This edit, regarding a cite in the caption for the image on the left side of the article page here caught my eye. The caption is very technically specialized in an area where I (probably like most readers of this article) have no background, and I'm having trouble relating it to the image. This image was inserted by you here, and it only appears in this article. AFAICS, the cite which you edited doesn't come into play re my problem understanding the caption, but I thought that you might help me out. Specifically, leading up to the cite which you edited, the caption says: "Applied Biosystems, most Philippine Y-DNA haplogroups were found to be O1 (O1a) and O2 (O1b1), both of which are common in populations from Southeast Asia as far north as the Yangtze Delta." I can relate "O1 (O1a)" there to "o1a1-M119 15.23%" and "01a1-P203 17.14%" in the image, but I find nothing in the image to relate to "O2 (O1b1)". I do see this article, which mentions O1b1, but that article is mostly gibberish to me and I'm having trouble relating it to the image or its caption. Can you give me a clue here? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:19, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is that it's very technical for me too. I only put that there because of a Korean Scientist I met who personally transcripted the data into the pie chart form you now see. Hmmm I'll ask him how he came to that data or how to access it. Until then, I think you should revert that. Regards! Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 16:02, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll not revert it for now, hoping for some resolution. I'm not really interested in operating procedures to replicate the results on the linked website -- I'm interested in clarification of how the image caption relates (or doesn't relate) to the image it purports to clarify; particularly the mention of "O2 (O1b1)" in the caption which I have been unable to relate in any way to the image. I see that the image does mention "O2a-PK4 12.38%" and "O2-F756 16.19%" in what I take to be an assertion that those are frequently found DNA components in the 105 tested individuals, but I'm unable to relate those mentions to "... O1 (O1a) and O2 (O1b1), both of which are common in populations from Southeast Asia ..." or to "... haplogroup O3 (O2-M122), which is especially common in ..." in the image caption. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 16:27, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think those are additional edits by other Wikipedians since I know I didn't write that down. I only focused on th European and Indian Y-DNAs. Anyway, it's midnight now and I have to sleep. I'll try to help you resolve this issue tomorrow. Many thanks my friend.Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 16:36, 18 May 2019 (UTC)😄[reply]

Yeah, it's messy. You, I, @Ebizur:, @Keroscene777:, and perhaps others have made edits impacting the figure and caption. I started to summarize that edit history here but it got to be too much nitpicky work. I'm not sure what to suggest but, as detailed a bit above, the present caption doesn't work for me as a clarification of the image. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 19:18, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

O1b1 is the current alphanumeric name for the clade that used to be called O2a. The defining SNPs of the O1b1 clade were also changed because members of intermediate branches were found (subsequent to the most recent common ancestor with the nearest outgroup, i.e. former O2b/current O1b2-M176, and prior to the most recent common ancestor of all members of the O-M95 clade) and M95 and its phylogenetically equivalent SNPs were moved down several levels in the phylogeny. Personally, I am troubled by the question of the reliability of the data on which that image has been based rather than the comprehensibility of the caption. Ebizur (talk) 00:09, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you want, I could edit the labelling on the pie chart to make it up to date with the new nomenclature but I'm afraid it might conflict with the results in the Y-DNA database (Which probably hasn't been updated since 2015, the date when the data was taken). So I'll just put the new label inside parenthesis. I'll do that this afternoon after I return from church.Regards! Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 00:17, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I already edited the Pie Chart to conform to the new naming system. Before you may see the results though I think you need to "purge" this page or clear your browser's cache' to see the new version of the Y-DNA pie-chart. I have sent queries to the Korean researcher who made the original pie chart while transcripting the data from the Y-DNA Bank, so far he hasn't replied yet, I will put you up to date once I contact him. Is there anything more do you like me to do in regards to this topic? -Cheers!!! Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 07:18, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The File history section at File:105_Filipino_Y-DNA.jpg shows two images now, but I don't see any difference between them. I've cleared my browsing data and tried loading the images directly from their individual URLs (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/3/3e/20190519071015%21105_Filipino_Y-DNA.jpg and https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3e/105_Filipino_Y-DNA.jpg), and they both look the same to me. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:08, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I think you need to manually "purge" the page. Go here for steps: (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:FAQ#PURGE) After you're finished purging, you should go back to this, File:105_Filipino_Y-DNA.jpg. I can see the new version very clearly BTW. :D Regards! Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 09:28, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've done that (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:105_Filipino_Y-DNA.jpg&action=purge), and still see no difference between the old image and the current one. I'm moving on to other things. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:15, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried purging while on the exact source page of the file itself? I didn't have my image updated until I did just that. Try it bro.Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 07:47, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed it during our conversation in the following talk pages:

• Talk:Battle of Manila (1258)
• Talk:Battle of Manila (1365)
• Talk:Battle of Manila (1405)

The Wikipedia:No original research guideline says it clearly: All material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source. This means that a reliable published source must exist for it, whether or not it is cited in the article. Every single claim you add in a Wikipedia article should be attributable to a source. However, many of your claims do not seem to follow this rule. For example:

The Battle of Manila (Filipino: Labanan sa Maynila) (1365) is an unspecified and disputed battle occurring somewhere in the vicinity of Manila between the forces of the kingdoms in Luzon and the Empire of Majapahit.

— Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr.

If a Wikipedia editor writes a sentence such as this, the claims should be attributable to a source. You are compelled as a Wiki editor to provide a source that a Battle of Manila occurred in 1365, that it is unspecified, that it is disputed, that it occurred somewhere in the vicinity of Manila, that it was a battle between the forces of Luzon and Majapahit. You can do that by citing a source. Citing a source is explained in the Wikipedia:Citing sources page. In particular:

• Look for a book published by a reputable publisher, preferably academic ones, like university books;
• Alternatively, look for journals. You can use JSTOR or Google Scholar for this;
• It is preferred to avoid blogs. Even if the blog is written by a reputable author, the claims are usually repeated in another non-blog source anyway, such as a journal article. Find the journal article instead;
• Provide the quotation and its respective page from the source that supports your claim. If you write that a Battle of Manila (1365) is a disputed battle, you should provide sources that actually claims that it is disputed;

I hope it is clear enough what I mean when I say prove that Battles A, B and C are true. I am not asking you to write essays that use logic and deductions (not allowed in Wikipedia). You are asked to give proper citations, provide the pages where the claims are supported. Simple as that. Also, please read the Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:No original research, especially the latter. You have to stick to the source, stop extrapolating and deducing from your sources. Just follow the source, provide the citations. Stricnina (talk) 23:33, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article Battle of Manila (1365) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No reliable sources can be identified to support that a battle occurred in the year 1365, and that specific battle occurred in a locality named "Manila". All the sources provided in the main Wiki entry do not mention any battle occuring in the year 1365 in a locality called "Manila". No other reliable secondary sources are identified that can be used to justify the very existence of this Wiki page. A discussion has already been carried out in the talk page regarding the absence of reliable sources regarding the 1365 Battle of Manila and the author failed to provide relevant sources that EXPLICITLY mention a 1365 Battle of Manila took place. Before proceeding to the AfD process, it is decided that a ProD process should be carried out first because the article fails to follow the Wikipedia:Verifiability, WP:No original research and Wikipedia:Do not create hoaxes.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

The article Battle of Manila (1405) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The sources of this Wiki entry are unreliable. One is an opinion piece written by a certain Perry Diaz and the source failed to mention any battle occurring in a locality named "Manila" on year 1405. The other source is a blog and its content is unhelpful as it doesn't mention any battle occurring in a locality named "Manila" on year 1405. In the talk page of this article, the Wiki editor who authored this article has failed to provide a single reliable source from reputable journals or academic books that explicitly mentions a 1405 battle occurring in Manila, meaning the Wiki article fails to follow the verifiability and notability guidelines. It is thus proposed to nominate this Wiki entry for a PRoD process.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Stricnina (talk) 20:10, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article Battle of Manila (1500) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The two sources do not mention any battle occurring in a locality named "Manila" in the year 1500. One is a badly-formatted and incomprehensible citation and the other one is a CIA Factbook with zero mention on any 1500 Battle of Manila. This article thus fails to satisfy the "no original research" and "reliable sources" guidelines. There are almost zero references that have been identified that can be used to justify the existence of this Wiki page, as the few reliable sources that have been located focus more on the strategic alliance between Manila and Brunei and dismiss outright (using one or two sentences) any idea regarding the Battle of Manila occurring on year 1500. These sources contain almost zero detail that can be used to develop this article. In other words, the topic fails to satisfy the notability criterion. More information on the talk page.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

There is actually a Bruneian source and one by Scott which even named the cannon or Lantaka, Sultan Bolkiah used to conquer Brunei. Look up "Earth Shaking/shattering thunder" in association with Sultan Bolkiah ane you might find the source, as for me, I'm going to sleep now, it's 12 AM in the Philippines. I need to sleep good night.Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 16:46, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The sources you have been mentioning weren't in the Battle of Manila (1500), and frankly speaking, since you were the author of that article, it is more proper that you look for the proper sources and add them as references for that specific Wikipedia article. You should know by now what kind of sources we're looking for, based on our previous conversations in Talk:Battle of Manila (1365) and Talk:Battle of Manila (1405): the sources must EXPLICITLY mention that a battle occurred in a locality named MANILA and that specific battle took place on year 1500. For more information regarding the failed verification of your previous sources and my arguments regarding the lack of notability of the topic itself, please refer to the talk page of the PRoDed article. Stricnina (talk) 21:52, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Stricnina ([[User talk:Stricnina|talk]]) 16:35, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I finally found the source which stated that a battle did occur "Scott, William Henry (1994). Barangay: Sixteenth Century Philippine Culture and Society. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press. ISBN 971-550-135-4" –Sultan Bolkiah, according to Brunei folk history, is the "Nakhoda Ragam" or the "Singing Captain", the reputed conqueror of the Philippines. The tradition even names the cannon with which he was said to have taken Manila - "Si Gantar Alam", translated as the "Earth-shaking Thunderer". He established an outpost in the center of the area of Manila after the rulers of Tondo lost in the Battle of Manila (1500). Sultan Bolkiah of Brunei is the grandfather of Ache, the old rajah, also known as Ladyang Matanda or Rajah Matanda. I haven't read the book directly and only seen quotes though but it merely said the battle occured in the 1500s not 1500 specifically...--Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 02:51, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest making a new article labeled "Battle of Manila 1500s" and merging this article there and then deleting this. To clarify this predicament...--Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 02:52, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr., after a little meditation, I have decided to delete my earlier comment and replace it with the current comment you are reading right now. I am sorry to inform you the book has been misquoted. Scott actually said the following:

Brunei folk history identifies Bulkeiah as Nakhoda Ragam, the reputed conqueror of the Philippines, and tradition even names the cannon with which he was said to have taken Manila - Si Gantar Alam, "Earthshaking Thunderer". When the Spaniards arrived in 1570, the port of Manila had three recognized rulers- Ache, the old rajah (Ladyang Matanda), and his nephew Soliman, the young rajah, and, in Tondo north of the Pasig River, Banaw Lakandula, Ache's cousin.

— W.H. Scott, "Barangay: Sixteenth-Century Philippine Culture and Society" (pp. 191-192)

Unfortunately, that quote alone doesn't tell us anything of value. It only mentions the topic as "folk history" and there are no dates when the "conquest" took place (before 1500? after 1500? during 1500? when did it start? when did it end?). The two keywords "BATTLE" and "1500" are absent. I personally suggest to just let the article go and write the few pieces of information that we have in more relevant pages like Tondo (historical polity) or other pages that can host these information. Also, please read my analysis from the talk page, in which I have presented the opinions of several scholar dismissing that the Bruneian conquest of Manila actually took place. Take care. Stricnina (talk) 17:13, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Barangay into Philippines. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:32, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Battle of Manila (1365) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Manila (1365) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Stricnina (talk) 09:50, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Negros Island, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. You used a personal blog and a website with user-generated material as sources. Doug Weller talk 15:31, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did on Caboloan. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Also violations of WP:NPOV, eg "that arose to fight for justice against the genocidal Mongols" - maybe if a well known academic said that you could quote and attribute, but our articles can't make such statements. Please never use YouTube or unpublished sources, eg "Early Trade Relations of the Philippines with China" - I'm going to have to look at your other edits as I'm not convinced you understand what you are doing here. Doug Weller talk 17:04, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You complained at my talk page that I hid an edit of yours, but it was a blatant copyright violation and you didn't even source it.[1] It was only last November that User:Diannaa gave you a warning. Not only that, it was cherry-picked from the source (which I have) and doesn't mention that the author dismissesd Raffles' statement. Copyright material should be, as this was, revision/deleted so that only Administrators can see it. Doug Weller talk 07:52, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, in that case, then hiding that is ok. I was not aware that citing that was a copyright violation. A man from Facebook just suggested that specific citation there. However, I just read the context where that was from though and there was a mention that the author herself suggested that her disregard of a connection between Majapahit or Srivijaya with the Philippines should itself be disregarded once archeological evidence is found. Unfortunately, I can't remember the site where I found a copy of that PDF was from, and I can't remember the link since it was only given to me, I typed the author's name in Google but it doesn't register the PDF I then saw. If you could kindly at least return the withheld information or at least the code that you blocked me acess to, at least I can better prove that statement more.

Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 12:29, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Nevermind, I found a public internet archive with a copy of that article here...

http://www.philippinestudies.net/files/journals/1/articles/890/public/890-3805-1-PB.pdf

As you can see from the year it was published. It's pretty dated, it is from the year 1967.

https://i.imgur.com/Z2PdUPj.png

Here'es the portion where she said we should update our paradigms once new archeological discoveries are unearthed pertaining to this (Which came after the article was published when the Laguna Copperplate Inscription was found 1989.)

https://i.imgur.com/q6VdvGv.png

As you can see, the assertion that she previously put forth has been refuted and that there is indeed evidence that the Philippines was under Majapahit.

So which means that the books she refuted are now under a different light and that archeological evidence has proven it in favor of these.

Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 13:35, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First, did you miss the "Copyright © Ateneo de Manila University"? Secondly even if you quoted it, you'd need to add the bit where she dismisses the idea. And you also say she's outdated, so it wold make no sense to use her. You need to use the current archaeological academic sources. Doug Weller talk 14:35, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I will find another source then, or add that bit where she dimisses it. I missed the first page initially since I just contol-F or search functioned the quotes that man gave me, so I sorta skipped the first page. Thank you for pointing it out.

Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 17:49, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. See WP:ANI#Editor who still hasn't learned about copyright, NPOV, original research and reliable sources Doug Weller talk 15:48, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am. I am a graduate of Political Science from San Sebastian in Manila — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ken imperial14 (talk • contribs) 12:52, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not particular with Fr. Besana, if you can recall the Rector President during Fr. Besana's tenure, I may be able to answer your query but during my tenure, Fr. Maspara and Fr. Nems Tolentin is the Rector President of Baste. Bravo Baste! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ken imperial14 (talk • contribs) 14:49, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Gustave Eiffel, as far as I can remember, he's one of the engineers but the chief designer really is Genaro Palacios. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ken imperial14 (talk • contribs) 14:56, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles." So far as I'm concerned I'm not convinced that you are competent enough to understand and follow our policies and guidelines. I'm sorry that this is harsh but I've had to resuscitate my complaint at ANI just now because of your poor edits. And stalking is a crime, you shouldn't accuse people of it. --Doug Weller talk 13:06, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I admit that "Stalking" is not the correct terminology. But again I implore you, look at most of my edits, they're legitimate. I've been trying to build consensus with you in almost all my conversations with you. But you view me as some sort of nuisance. I REPEATEDLY follow your advice, tone down my works several times to accomodate YOUR assertions yet as can be seen from your lack of replies to the sources I cited in that complaint you yourself put up, earlier, I am honestly perplexed kind sir, you want me to cite proper sources. I did! Yet even after I do, you threaten Wiki litigation on me. And you say that I do not follow Wiki policy when I accept your corrections and edit it according to what you want! Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 13:47, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Doug Weller:, WP:AN is sufficient to review his actions. Eyes are on this and you don't need to perpetually hound him on the matter. If you have issues, please bring it to WP:AN via diffs and concise summaries. Do not hound him. Buffs (talk) 16:35, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no hounding here. Watch it, Buffs. Drmies (talk) 03:25, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Buffs: There is certainly no hounding. I understand that you are in a foul mood after an unpleasant and unfair experience at the hands of a legacy admin. But going around attacking random admins, such as myself here and Doug Weller above, isn't the way to go. Please consider that we're all volunteers, and that there are real people behind the usernames. Bishonen | talk 04:55, 22 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]

    When someone is going around following a person's every edit (regardless as to whether they are an admin or not), it's hounding and inflaming the situation. There are real people behind the user names of those that admins are interacting with too. Obviously RBSJ feels hounded. WP:AN will handle the matter. It was meant as gentle encouragement to let it be handled there. We're all watching it and I've even put in a vote to have RBSJ be sanctioned.

    For the record, it hasn't been 1 admin that was over the line, it's been at least 4, two of whom sanctioned me a total of 3 times for spurious reasons and refused to even discuss their actions with a "mere peon" such as myself. Buffs (talk) 14:59, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Buffs: Oh? Did those four include me and/or Doug? Your notion of gentle encouragement is extraordinary — as extraordinary as your notion of hounding or of edit warring — and I could tell you more, except that the talkpage of a blocked user isn't the right place to be reading you the riot act. Bishonen | talk 08:32, 23 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Then take it to my talk page. No, it isn't you or Doug. Buffs (talk) 15:28, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very sorry to have to tell you that I have blocked you indefinitely because of the editing problems that appear in this ANI thread, both from your own posts and from other people's. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bishonen | talk 04:43, 22 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kedatuan of Dapitan is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kedatuan of Dapitan until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Doug Weller talk 14:05, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I was blocked by Bishonen due to some mistakes I made concerning Original Research and Citing Sources Appropriately which I admit that I have done and as per the discussions here (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=911938204#Editor_who_still_hasn't_learned_about_copyright,_NPOV,_original_research_and_reliable_sources) Nevertheless, I have refuted or silenced several issues set against me (As seen by the ceasing of replies against some points of mine), however I acknowledge that I have done said mistakes lately and as such I will improve my behavior from this point on. Furethermore, I would like to point out the fact that despite what all my accusers, are saying about this and that, that I am not competent to edit Wikipeda (By the mere fact that I have spent almost 11 years here without a hitch and only had trouble lately and I was the top contributor to Philippines article and the Philippine history article and have been part of the team of editors who raised the Philippines article to "Good Article" Status), Show that my track record speaks otherwise , and that SOME people (I would not name names) gathered detractors against me to put me on a trial by publicity (Despite me repeatedly trying to build consensus with them by watering down my points and edits consistently and EVEN BEGING THAT PEOPLE FORGIVE THEM EVEN WHEN THEY EMOTIONALLY DAMAGED ME, plus, I have always been civil with my detractors). However, they did this against me, without even asking the opinions of people who I had correspondence with and know of my good character and can attest for my competency, like the Administrator Wtmitchell or editor, Darwgon0801 who can say things in favor of me, but instead (SOME PEOPLE) gathered detractors only, thus not giving a balanced and fair trial (I know what a fair trial is since my mother is a judge and was a top notcher of the Philippine Law Bar during her time, and I used to mediate conflicts during my years in the clergy). However, I do admit that I am guilty of original research since I have lately been influenced by Facebook Friends who want me to post ideas here; however, this is only a late affair since before this, I have been editing and creating dozens of articles and none or very little of which were flagged for Original Research. In my entire 11 year Wikipedia history here; I have been generally competent, always reaching for consensus, righteous and forgiving and also open to being corrected. You do not judge a person by just a small facet of what he did but by what you percieve of him in totality. Anyway, this is honestly a temporary mistake (Original Research and Improper Citations) which I don't usually do. What I learned from this experience is that Wikipedia is not a place to publish Original Content and now that I have been hired by an online Publishing Company, I will publish my content there and actually be paid and respected for it instead of putting it here in Wikipedia where I will be sharply rebuked for such. However, I agree with Bishonen that I should really leave Wikipedia albeit only temporarily, so instead of having me immidiately unblocked I propose that my Indefinite Block be reduced to 2 to 3 months. Truly Yours! Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 12:23, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

That's not how this works; if you want to be unblocked in 2 or 3 months instead of now, then you are free to request unblock in 2 or 3 months. 331dot (talk) 12:32, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Thank for your precious time and effort in replying to me good sir 331dot. I will make another unblock request by October. Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 12:40, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Ok, this is my second request to be unblocked, the first was in August where I said that I wanted to be unblocked, instead of automatically, around 2 months from now since I was taking a break from Wikipedia writing other research papers. However, the unblock request was denied by the Administrator 331dot clarifying that unblocks don't work that way and that if I wanted to be unblocked 2 months away from that point in time, I should rather wait for 2 months to pass before formulating another request for an unblock. I have followed his instructions and now, 2 months have elapsed and I am now requesting an unblock, mainly for the same reasons as the previous one, let me quote Verbatim: "I was blocked by Bishonen due to some mistakes I made concerning Original Research and Citing Sources Appropriately which I admit that I have done and as per the discussions here (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=911938204#Editor_who_still_hasn't_learned_about_copyright,_NPOV,_original_research_and_reliable_sources) Nevertheless, I have refuted or silenced several issues set against me (As seen by the ceasing of replies against some points of mine), however I acknowledge that I have done said mistakes lately and as such I will improve my behavior from this point on. Furethermore, I would like to point out the fact that despite what all my accusers, are saying about this and that, that I am not competent to edit Wikipeda (By the mere fact that I have spent almost 11 years here without a hitch and only had trouble lately and I was the top contributor to Philippines article and the Philippine history article and have been part of the team of editors who raised the Philippines article to "Good Article" Status), Show that my track record speaks otherwise , and that SOME people (I would not name names) gathered detractors against me to put me on a trial by publicity (Despite me repeatedly trying to build consensus with them by watering down my points and edits consistently and EVEN BEGING THAT PEOPLE FORGIVE THEM EVEN WHEN THEY EMOTIONALLY DAMAGED ME, plus, I have always been civil with my detractors). However, they did this against me, without even asking the opinions of people who I had correspondence with and know of my good character and can attest for my competency, like the Administrator Wtmitchell or editor, Darwgon0801 who can say things in favor of me, but instead (SOME PEOPLE) gathered detractors only, thus not giving a balanced and fair trial (I know what a fair trial is since my mother is a judge and was a top notcher of the Philippine Law Bar during her time, and I used to mediate conflicts during my years in the clergy). However, I do admit that I am guilty of original research since I have lately been influenced by Facebook Friends who want me to post ideas here; however, this is only a late affair since before this, I have been editing and creating dozens of articles and none or very little of which were flagged for Original Research. In my entire 11 year Wikipedia history here; I have been generally competent, always reaching for consensus, righteous and forgiving and also open to being corrected. You do not judge a person by just a small facet of what he did but by what you percieve of him in totality. Anyway, this is honestly a temporary mistake (Original Research and Improper Citations) which I don't usually do. What I learned from this experience is that Wikipedia is not a place to publish Original Content and now that I have been hired by an online Publishing Company, I will publish my content there and actually be paid and respected for it instead of putting it here in Wikipedia where I will be sharply rebuked for such. However, I agree with Bishonen that I should really leave Wikipedia albeit only temporarily". P.S: My time away from Wikipedia has opened my eyes and that I have learned not to escalate my intensity in editing and defending my point of view and instead search for consensus and I am genuinely regretful of any past mistakes I have done. Truly Yours! Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 21:56, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I'm sorry, but I cannot unblock you as you have not addressed the reasons for your block. I'm afraid this is more a manifesto than an unblock request. Please confine your comments to what you have done to be blocked and what you will do instead in the future. Please do not talk about the finer qualities of those with whom you disagree. Please, please, be concise. It might be best to wait out the full 2 months.-- Deepfriedokra 10:53, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Someone else will review your request; I would point out that August 30 to October 1 is only a day over one month, not two. You can certainly request unblock, but it hasn't been two months. 331dot (talk) 22:14, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	US Banknote Contest
	November-December 2019
There are an estimated 30,000 different varieties of United States banknotes, yet only a fraction of these are represented on Wikimedia Commons in the form of 2D scans. Additionally, × × €4.95 / month Favourites List Audio Listining Color Mode Monthly New Updates Fullname * Email * Credit or debit card Subscribe A PHP Error was encountered Severity: Notice Message: Undefined variable: userid Filename: user/popup_modal.php Line Number: 68 Backtrace: File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/application/views/user/popup_modal.php Line: 68 Function: _error_handler File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/application/views/page/index.php Line: 478 Function: view File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/application/controllers/Main.php Line: 107 Function: view File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/index.php Line: 315 Function: require_once "> Subscribe Now × €4.95 € 9.90 / Modal title × Close Save changes × User_talk:Rene_Bascos_Sarabia_Jr." id="cancelSubscription" name="cancelSubscription" class="mb-0"> A PHP Error was encountered Severity: Notice Message: Undefined variable: user_membership Filename: user/popup_modal.php Line Number: 192 Backtrace: File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/application/views/user/popup_modal.php Line: 192 Function: _error_handler File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/application/views/page/index.php Line: 478 Function: view File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/application/controllers/Main.php Line: 107 Function: view File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/index.php Line: 315 Function: require_once A PHP Error was encountered Severity: Warning Message: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() Filename: user/popup_modal.php Line Number: 192 Backtrace: File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/application/views/user/popup_modal.php Line: 192 Function: _error_handler File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/application/views/page/index.php Line: 478 Function: view File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/application/controllers/Main.php Line: 107 Function: view File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/index.php Line: 315 Function: require_once A PHP Error was encountered Severity: Notice Message: Undefined variable: userid Filename: user/popup_modal.php Line Number: 208 Backtrace: File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/application/views/user/popup_modal.php Line: 208 Function: _error_handler File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/application/views/page/index.php Line: 478 Function: view File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/application/controllers/Main.php Line: 107 Function: view File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/index.php Line: 315 Function: require_once "> Harry Potter Books × A PHP Error was encountered Severity: Notice Message: Undefined variable: products Filename: user/popup_harry_book.php Line Number: 24 Backtrace: File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/application/views/user/popup_harry_book.php Line: 24 Function: _error_handler File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/application/views/page/index.php Line: 479 Function: view File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/application/controllers/Main.php Line: 107 Function: view File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/index.php Line: 315 Function: require_once A PHP Error was encountered Severity: Warning Message: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() Filename: user/popup_harry_book.php Line Number: 24 Backtrace: File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/application/views/user/popup_harry_book.php Line: 24 Function: _error_handler File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/application/views/page/index.php Line: 479 Function: view File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/application/controllers/Main.php Line: 107 Function: view File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/index.php Line: 315 Function: require_once