Please provide references in your edits on the Zamboanga del Sur article. Several of the edits you made before are contentious and are arguably erroneous, such as:
I didn't need to provide my sources when I made the reversion, as I was not the one making the edits with contentious claims. If you have supporting sources then please cite them in the article. Thanks. Dakilang Isagani ( talk) 09:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
User:Dakilang Isagani, we will give you, and others in your predisposition, a chance to redeem yourself and your feeling that YOU do not have to provide your source for your erroneous statements about Zamboanga del Sur and Zamboanga City, although Wikipedia's mandate requires you to do it. We will provide you one source of historical, legal, correctness for you and the world to absorb, and in turn we want you to reciprocate in the same manner, without any hesitation or continued argument, YOUR side of the source of reference to your erroneous claims. Then, we all can compare notes and move forward with proper history.
So, here's a reference for you to absorb:
FIRST NATIONAL ASSEMBLY First Session
Begun and held at the City of Manila on Tuesday, the sixteenth day of June, nineteen hundred and thirty-six.
( COMMONWEALTH ACT NO. 39 )
An Act Creating The City of Zamboanga
Be it enacted by the National Assembly of the Philippines:
Section 1 — This Act shall be known as the “Charter of the City of Zamboanga.”
ARTICLE 1 — GENERAL PROVISIONS
.
The City of Zamboanga, which is hereby created, shall consists of the present territorial jurisdiction of the municipality of Zamboanga, the municipality of Bolong, the municipal district of Isabela, the municipal district of Lamitan, and the municipal district of Maluso.
ARTICLE VII — TRANSITORY PROVISIONS
Section 47 — Change of Government.
The City government provided in this Charter shall be organized immediately after the appointment and qualification of the City Mayor, and the appointment and induction into office of the members of the City Council, as herein provided, or as soon thereafter as possible. The territory of the City, upon completion of the organization of the municipal government, shall cease to be under the jurisdiction of the Provincial Government of Zamboanga.
Section 48 — Conduct of Elections in Zamboanga.
For the effectuation of the purposes of the Election Law in the election of public officers for the City of Zamboanga, the duties which are by said law made incumbent upon provincial boards and municipal Councils shall be performed by the City Council of Zamboanga, and the duties imposed by said law upon provincial treasurers and municipal secretaries shall be performed by the Secretary to the Mayor.
.
Until otherwise provided by law, the Province of Zamboanga and the City of Zamboanga shall constitute, as one assembly district and the capital of the province, only for residential purchases of the provincial government, shall remain as heretofore.
Section 50 — Provincial Building and Properties.
The buildings and properties which the province shall abandon upon the transfer of the capital to another place will be acquired and paid for by the City of Zamboanga at a price to be fixed by the Auditor General.
ARTICLE VIII – EFFECTIVITY OF THIS ACT
Section 51 — Effectivity.
This Act shall take effect upon its approval.
Approved:
____________________________________________
Speaker of the National Assembly
This Act was finally passed by the National Assembly on September 23, 1936.
Approved:
__________________________________________________
President of the Philippines
(Manuel P. Quezon)
Signed on October 12, 1936
You have sources, but you're misinterpreting them. I am far from the one changing history here. I fully understand the contents of CA 39, and none of it actually supports your claim. Kindly review the points I make below and see:
The question now is: where does the claim that Zamboanga City had jurisdiction over the entire former Moro Province district of Zamboanga fit in here, then?
Hope this clears things up. Responses are certainly expected. No hard feelings (hopefully), and please remain calm and civil. I'm just another editor that likes the truth! Dakilang Isagani ( talk) 05:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
The historical facts were presented to you, and others like you, in the same manner as you present dogmatic twisted facts about the original and historic Zamboanga City and its namesake birth-child in "Zamboanga" del Sur (Zamboanga del Norte and Zamboanga Sibugay NEVER have done your kind of dirty work - ever! But you and others like you choose to do so, and the only conclusion the world have as to why you continue to tell a lie is because you have evil ulterior motives! However, WE the people of Zamboanga City, the ancient town and chartered city, will continue to fight your lies and zeal to try and change facts of history!).
We will no longer permit your lies to be allowed to be presented as having any semblance of truth. You have a chance to redeem yourself/yourselves and make factual presentations as presented by the official government of the Province of Zamboanga del Sur, and forever remove any erroneous reference to Zamboanga City being in any way shape or form associated with the Province of Zamboanga del Sur. We will allow you some time to make the permanent changes.
Your LIES must stop now!
You're not doing a great job of making your arguments any clearer. If you really want to let the truth out, then let's see some credible sources on your part (and not CA 39 and RA 711 - which I have effectively explained DO NOT help you in anyway). And in response to what you've just brought up:
Clearly, you are in denial of what has unfolded. Sorry real history didn't turn out to be the way you've fantasized it, but somebody has to speak for the truth. The truth is what I've presented before, and you've failed to address them with useful counter-arguments, only retreating to name-calling without actually substantiating your claims. Give something useful and maybe you won't look so foolish. One way to accomplish this is by using your big words such as "cohort" or "dogmatic" (wow, wrong use) towards things that count in this discussion, such as facts. -- Dakilang Isagani ( talk) 00:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Okay, translation: Erroneous claim (Zamboanga City belongs to Zamboanga del Sur...) = Intentional deflection (Zamboanga del Sur belongs to Zamboanga City...).
You get it? You surely get the feeling of being "affected" by it, so therefore we are successful in getting the message across to you and your cohorts.
You don't have martial rule over this open Wikipedia process, and we've tried our due diligence to let the truth sink in to your attitude... so, we'll continue our editing efforts... We still hold hope for you and your dogma, but we digress. We have a public dictionary you could borrow...
Sorry, you just failed proving what you've been claiming before. Proves you're the one making up these fantasies. You clearly have no facts, so there's nothing left to talk about here. And NO ONE is saying that ZC "belongs" to ZDS. Find one instance in Wikipedia and you'll find NONE. I rest my case and hopefully you can take time to reflect on this little episode. Wikipedia is not the place for unfounded claims. -- Dakilang Isagani ( talk) 16:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Case CLOSED.
Please provide references in your edits on the Zamboanga del Sur article. Several of the edits you made before are contentious and are arguably erroneous, such as:
I didn't need to provide my sources when I made the reversion, as I was not the one making the edits with contentious claims. If you have supporting sources then please cite them in the article. Thanks. Dakilang Isagani ( talk) 09:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
User:Dakilang Isagani, we will give you, and others in your predisposition, a chance to redeem yourself and your feeling that YOU do not have to provide your source for your erroneous statements about Zamboanga del Sur and Zamboanga City, although Wikipedia's mandate requires you to do it. We will provide you one source of historical, legal, correctness for you and the world to absorb, and in turn we want you to reciprocate in the same manner, without any hesitation or continued argument, YOUR side of the source of reference to your erroneous claims. Then, we all can compare notes and move forward with proper history.
So, here's a reference for you to absorb:
FIRST NATIONAL ASSEMBLY First Session
Begun and held at the City of Manila on Tuesday, the sixteenth day of June, nineteen hundred and thirty-six.
( COMMONWEALTH ACT NO. 39 )
An Act Creating The City of Zamboanga
Be it enacted by the National Assembly of the Philippines:
Section 1 — This Act shall be known as the “Charter of the City of Zamboanga.”
ARTICLE 1 — GENERAL PROVISIONS
.
The City of Zamboanga, which is hereby created, shall consists of the present territorial jurisdiction of the municipality of Zamboanga, the municipality of Bolong, the municipal district of Isabela, the municipal district of Lamitan, and the municipal district of Maluso.
ARTICLE VII — TRANSITORY PROVISIONS
Section 47 — Change of Government.
The City government provided in this Charter shall be organized immediately after the appointment and qualification of the City Mayor, and the appointment and induction into office of the members of the City Council, as herein provided, or as soon thereafter as possible. The territory of the City, upon completion of the organization of the municipal government, shall cease to be under the jurisdiction of the Provincial Government of Zamboanga.
Section 48 — Conduct of Elections in Zamboanga.
For the effectuation of the purposes of the Election Law in the election of public officers for the City of Zamboanga, the duties which are by said law made incumbent upon provincial boards and municipal Councils shall be performed by the City Council of Zamboanga, and the duties imposed by said law upon provincial treasurers and municipal secretaries shall be performed by the Secretary to the Mayor.
.
Until otherwise provided by law, the Province of Zamboanga and the City of Zamboanga shall constitute, as one assembly district and the capital of the province, only for residential purchases of the provincial government, shall remain as heretofore.
Section 50 — Provincial Building and Properties.
The buildings and properties which the province shall abandon upon the transfer of the capital to another place will be acquired and paid for by the City of Zamboanga at a price to be fixed by the Auditor General.
ARTICLE VIII – EFFECTIVITY OF THIS ACT
Section 51 — Effectivity.
This Act shall take effect upon its approval.
Approved:
____________________________________________
Speaker of the National Assembly
This Act was finally passed by the National Assembly on September 23, 1936.
Approved:
__________________________________________________
President of the Philippines
(Manuel P. Quezon)
Signed on October 12, 1936
You have sources, but you're misinterpreting them. I am far from the one changing history here. I fully understand the contents of CA 39, and none of it actually supports your claim. Kindly review the points I make below and see:
The question now is: where does the claim that Zamboanga City had jurisdiction over the entire former Moro Province district of Zamboanga fit in here, then?
Hope this clears things up. Responses are certainly expected. No hard feelings (hopefully), and please remain calm and civil. I'm just another editor that likes the truth! Dakilang Isagani ( talk) 05:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
The historical facts were presented to you, and others like you, in the same manner as you present dogmatic twisted facts about the original and historic Zamboanga City and its namesake birth-child in "Zamboanga" del Sur (Zamboanga del Norte and Zamboanga Sibugay NEVER have done your kind of dirty work - ever! But you and others like you choose to do so, and the only conclusion the world have as to why you continue to tell a lie is because you have evil ulterior motives! However, WE the people of Zamboanga City, the ancient town and chartered city, will continue to fight your lies and zeal to try and change facts of history!).
We will no longer permit your lies to be allowed to be presented as having any semblance of truth. You have a chance to redeem yourself/yourselves and make factual presentations as presented by the official government of the Province of Zamboanga del Sur, and forever remove any erroneous reference to Zamboanga City being in any way shape or form associated with the Province of Zamboanga del Sur. We will allow you some time to make the permanent changes.
Your LIES must stop now!
You're not doing a great job of making your arguments any clearer. If you really want to let the truth out, then let's see some credible sources on your part (and not CA 39 and RA 711 - which I have effectively explained DO NOT help you in anyway). And in response to what you've just brought up:
Clearly, you are in denial of what has unfolded. Sorry real history didn't turn out to be the way you've fantasized it, but somebody has to speak for the truth. The truth is what I've presented before, and you've failed to address them with useful counter-arguments, only retreating to name-calling without actually substantiating your claims. Give something useful and maybe you won't look so foolish. One way to accomplish this is by using your big words such as "cohort" or "dogmatic" (wow, wrong use) towards things that count in this discussion, such as facts. -- Dakilang Isagani ( talk) 00:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Okay, translation: Erroneous claim (Zamboanga City belongs to Zamboanga del Sur...) = Intentional deflection (Zamboanga del Sur belongs to Zamboanga City...).
You get it? You surely get the feeling of being "affected" by it, so therefore we are successful in getting the message across to you and your cohorts.
You don't have martial rule over this open Wikipedia process, and we've tried our due diligence to let the truth sink in to your attitude... so, we'll continue our editing efforts... We still hold hope for you and your dogma, but we digress. We have a public dictionary you could borrow...
Sorry, you just failed proving what you've been claiming before. Proves you're the one making up these fantasies. You clearly have no facts, so there's nothing left to talk about here. And NO ONE is saying that ZC "belongs" to ZDS. Find one instance in Wikipedia and you'll find NONE. I rest my case and hopefully you can take time to reflect on this little episode. Wikipedia is not the place for unfounded claims. -- Dakilang Isagani ( talk) 16:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Case CLOSED.