|
You are invited to join the discussion here.-- JL 09 q? c 10:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Joseph Estrada. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.-- Eaglestorm ( talk) 11:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did to Talk:Joseph Estrada, you will be blocked from editing. You must read WT:PINOY's discussion first. JL 09 q? c 14:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Talk:Joseph Estrada. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. -- Eaglestorm ( talk) 18:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that you have posted comments to the page Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines in a language other than English. When on the English-language Wikipedia, please always use English, no matter to whom you address your comments. This is so that comments may be comprehensible to the community at large. If the use of another language is unavoidable, please provide a translation of the comments. For more details, see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thank you. -- Eaglestorm ( talk) 05:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. -- SineBot ( talk) 23:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
The article Siling labuyo has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
If not PROD: I suggest merging it with Thai pepper creating a section showing on how it is used in Filipino cuisine. Anyhow, Siling labuyo and Thai pepper have the same biological make-up, same taste, etc.
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 {{
dated prod}}
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 {{
dated prod}}
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.
JL 09
q?
c 03:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Siling labuyo, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siling labuyo. Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. JL 09 q? c 12:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. -- SineBot ( talk) 10:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. -- SineBot ( talk) 17:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
If you look at Germany's or Mexico's history section its 4 times longer than ours ( Philippines) yet they have lesser content, while ours is just subdivided into 4 epochs small but still packed with content. Still condensed and summarized. we don't need to shorten it, just condense it and correct grammar or spelling errors
Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw ( talk) 12:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Ah ok, I understand now. If Wikipedia's Manual of style requires that that the format be in that structure then it should be small caps. I just edited that into capitalized letters because that's the norm. Also, Islam already existed "At the dawn of the 1st Millennium C.E." since according to the article Islam the 1st Islamic states had been established in 632–750 C.E. in Saudi Arabia. It even predates the Classical Period of Philippine History by two centuries. Hence although the Sultanate of Sulu and Maguindanao wasn't established until the 1200s. Muslims have been in the archipelago before that. But in retrospect, I think is should rewrite the sentence to better get the gist of my idea what I really meant is that "In the early years of the 1st millennium there were several states either ruled by Datus, Rajahs and Sultans." Thank You for your vigilance. Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw ( talk) 13:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. -- SineBot ( talk) 17:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Template:Filipino food has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. JL 09 q? c 17:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Doreen Fernandez requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{
hangon}}
to the top of
the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on
the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact
one of these admins to request that they
userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you.
JL 09
q?
c 17:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. -- SineBot ( talk) 03:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
This is re this complaint about disruptive edits to the nascent Sovereignty of the Philippines article.
You're right in your latest comments in response to that complaint that I should have discussed this with you here before opening the complaint. I'm not normally a very contentious editor I'm rarely involved in serious disputes, and WP:dispute resolution is not something I spend a lot of time at. The discussion we've had on the complaint page should have taken place here. let's continue it here.
Straight out, it seems to me that you are the one with POV issues, not me. I just want to get an article in place giving details of this topic which can be referenced by wikilink. I don't think this is the place to discuss article content, though, except as it relates to your disruptive edits.
Some bullet points from WP:TE#Characteristics of problem editors -- my comments in green:
Here are some hints to help you recognise if you or someone else has become a problem editor:
This doesn't speak to the qualifier "often" above, but...
We're only talking about a single article here, so the qualifier "often" doesn't apply, but...
You: "You have had the opportunity to easily include other pertinent points of view but have not done so and have selectively cited portions of various sources to present one viewpoint disregarding other viewpoints even if they were on the same page or the next page of sources you cite. That indicates deliberate omission of pertinent information and that you have written this article with the intent to advocate your preferred point of view."
Me: "If you feel that I have left important points out, please add relevant points which I have missed. Please, though, cite
reliable sources supporting the added material."
I have not accused you of "suppressing information", "censorship" or "denying facts" as far as I can recall. If so, please cite an instance. Indeed if there is anyone accusing anyone of denying facts it is you. What I have accused you of is bias and advocacy and have based that conclusion on rather unambiguous comments that you have made. I assume you believe what you believe and are doing good by proselytizing your belief. But it is not neutral.
You haven't deleted any of my cite-supported material, but...
You: "I could edit the article directly but I think I'd be deleting a lot of it."
The deletion-candidate material would presumably be supported by cited reliable sources, as that describes most of the material in the article. If your NPOV issues are with (as you have indicated) the article not containing material supporting your POV, the proper way to address this would be to add such material with supporting cites, not to delete cite-supported material with which you disagree.
As you say I have not deleted anything. Period.
Me: "Labmbanog, please show cause why you should not be reported as a disruptive editor and/or discuss each of your additional taggings under the individual tags listed below:"
You: "The tags are pretty clear self-evident in what areas I think it is so. Read the above discussion and you will see specific criticism that remains unaddressed."
I wanted a discussion tag-by-tag, working towards addressing your concerns tag-by-tag so as to get the tags removed. You didn't want to talk about it.
You: Furthermore, the article is written mainly to support one point of view. It is essay like in that regard. You have had the opportunity to easily include other pertinent points of view but have not done so and have selectively cited portions of various sources to present one viewpoint disregarding other viewpoints even if they were on the same page or the next page of sources you cite."
I took that as a request by you that I go find sources supporting other pertinent points of view and add those points and the supporting sources to the article in order to address your concerns (work which you should have done yourself if able). I tried, and found nothing. then, later, ...
Me: "If I have missed asserting alternative points of view, it is because I have been unable to find reliable sources supporting alternative points of view (I have tried). I believe that all points of view supported by reliable sources should be given due weight, and I have urged you without success to add cite-supported assertions of such alternative points of view to this article."
I have responded to every query you have made. My tags are very specific. I have referred you to the Philippine-American War article as giving better context and have given you many scenarios and perspectives from which to approach the topic. That you plead an inability to find anything suggests to me either that you are not a good editor or are being deliberately dense and unwilling to write as per WP:WFTE. Furthermore your precipitate reporting of me to ANI without following proper procedure for "disruptive editing" is overkill and displays ignorance or unclear understanding of process. Coming from an admin who should know better raises doubts as to whether WP:AGF should still be applied.
Bullet points from WP:DE#Signs of disruptive editing -- my comments in green:
The only one who continued editing and adding material despite concerns raised as to the appropriateness of it was you.
Also see the bullet points from WP:TE above.
in this edit, you added three {{tl|cn}} tags to statements which I had thought were sufficiently straightforwardly obvious not to require explicit support. I responded to the tags by doing this edit, which just added clutter to the article. One of the supporting sources which I cited in response was a dictionary definition of the word, "Insurgency". That degree of explicit support should not be necessary.
You may think it is unnecessary, but I think it is. I also think you still haven't provided the other side of the story and that citing a dictionary definition in that particular instance is inadequate. An authority willing to say that flat out in the case of Spain and the Philippines is called for.
You certainly have not engaged in consensus building in this case.
Then why is it that I feel I have a better claim to representing consensus than you do?
You've disregarded my request for tag-by-tag explanations of the tags with which you tag-bombed the article
I told you I feel they are self-explanatory. It is better to ask why do you disregard my concerns about POV problems that I have raised from the very beginning?
Discussion on the article talk page appears to be moving in the direction of consensus to move the article to another name, and probably to restructure it. That's fine with me, and I will participate in attempting to arrive at a consensus about specifically how to address the need for an article addressing the details of the independence status of various unsuccessful insurgent movements in the Philippine (questions about which and impacting various other articles relating to the Philippines come up over and over again) within the context of a larger topic which includes those details.
I have withdrawn my disruptive editing complaint prior to its evaluation, and I'm OK with letting the matter go. I urge you, however, to look at and think about the green bits above. You may not agree that I'm on target with all of it, but there is food for thought there. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. -- SineBot ( talk) 03:18, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added such as to the page Filipino cuisine do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used as a platform for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. [1] [2] -- Ronz ( talk) 00:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I notice that you recently added {{ PD-Philippines}} to a large number of images related to the Filipino presidency. Do you have any basis for the claim that these images are in the public domain? The source information doesn't seem to support that. ( ESkog)( Talk) 16:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
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—
Thanks,-- JL 09 q? c 14:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC re: a 'Motion to close', which would dissolve Cda as a proposal. The motion includes an !vote. You have previously commented at this page. Jusdafax 07:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
In good faith I recently proposed to build a new consensus on the fourth paragraph of the History Section of the Philippines article [3] based on the previous consensus version [4] which many editors had worked on for some time. I recently explained the motivations of this previous version and how it came to be [5]. My proposal was a sincere offer to build a new consensus with everybody's opinions and contributions. However, you and Gubernatoria keep reverting this consensus without any justification except your own convictions, and ironically, accuse me of edit warring.
This is a new appeal for consensus-building and a constructive approach by all. Let us start from that previous version and please do not revert the text again. JCRB ( talk) 13:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Lol you reverted an edition we discussed in the Discussion forum. I want to know why. Did I do some mistake or did a historical inaccuracy? On this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Philippines&oldid=335243833.
As far as I know, I based all my conclusions on cited books and internet sources. If I did any mistake please let me know. Thank You. Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw ( talk) 16:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't want to get too off topic on Julian's RFB. Of course I would feel differently if it was as you described. You should be aware that some people find comparisons of sexism or racism to "ageism" to actually be offensive. It does suggest somewhat limited empathy for different genders/races and a poor grasp of the concept of time. -- JayHenry ( talk) 16:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I am not sure what you are trying to do with the addition of a References section, but the addition broke the testcases page. If you want a references section for the documentation examples, you should edit the documentation page, not the template itself. — John Cardinal ( talk) 15:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Please because its already edited.
Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw ( talk) 13:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
My Reply to your discussions expansion: When deliberations go to a voting I assure, you have my vote just as long as my editions get into your version, *wink2x . Although I think that my editions should be in there but you can do with it in whatever fashion you like, minimalize it or whatever but you "Must" include the Negritos, the prince who spread islam and the causes of the Revolution because those things are sooo vital. I can't beleive they arent even mentioned in the lead section and history subsections of this ucrrent edition which in all respects is outdated.
Turly Yours Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw ( talk)( talk) 02:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Re this edit of mine, neither of the VFAs support this. The Mutual Defense Treaty doesn't support it directly either, but it can be construed to do so under article 2. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
when I just habitually clicked on your contributions, I happened to see the template shortcut links you created,
T:cite paper,
T:cite news,
T:cite web, and
T:cite book, following the recommendation at
WP:VPR#Make "T:" a shortcut to refer to templates. You got, in my opinion, rather bad advice there, since as long as T: is no proper namespace alias, those shortcuts are actually residing in normal article space (mainspace), i.e. cross-namespace redirects. That has a number of undesirable side effects, which are detailed at
WP:XNR. Since those pages aren't used yet, could I convince you that we can delete them again? Although the respective speedy deletion criterion
WP:CSD#R2 exempts redirects to template space, for historical reason, the intention is actually to keep mainspace clean of them, and newly created redirects of that kind are usually deleted at
WP:RfD,.
I'm not sure why you find them useful, but maybe there are other ways this can be accomplished.
Amalthea 19:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
addPortletLink('p-tb', 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Cite_news', 'T:Cite news', 't-cite-news', 'Template:Cite news', '', '');
After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.
A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;
You are receiving this message as you have voted in VOTE 3 at the Community de-Adminship 'Proposal Finalization' Poll.
It has been pointed out that VOTE 3 was confusing, and that voters have been assuming that the question was about creating an actual two-phase CDA process. The question is merely about having a two-phase poll on CDA at the eventual RfC, where the community will have their vote (eg a "yes/no for CDA” poll, followed a choice of proposal types perhaps).
As I wrote the question, I'll take responsibility for the confusion. It does make sense if read through to the end, but it certainly wasn't as clear as it should have been, or needed to be!
Please amend your vote if appropriate - it seems that many (if not most) people interpreted the question in the way that was not intended.
Regards, Matt Lewis ( talk) 16:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated Siling mahaba, 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/Siling mahaba. 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.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. JL 09 q?c 14:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I found the relevant RfD and review on these, and I was curious if you've ever tried turning on the "reftools" option under your preferences. Having a {{ cite}} button on the editing toolbar has been a godsend for me, and I thought it might address the concerns that led you to create these shortcuts in the first place.-- otherl left 15:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to weigh in on my RfA. It was successful, in that the community's wish not to grant me the tools at this time was honored. I'm taking all the comments as constructive feedback and hope to become more valuable to the project as a result; I've also discovered several new areas in which to work. Because debating the merits of a candidate can be taxing on the heart and brain, I offer this kitten as a low-allergen, low-stress token of my appreciation. -- otherl left 13:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC) |
Thank you for the kitten. I'm conflicted about whether to reveal I'm allergic or not but in this case I get the feeling it wouldn't really matter and it probably doesn't hurt to accept. Lambanog ( talk) 11:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I saw your addendum to your oppose, but as it was added after the official end of the RfA, it did not seem to make sense to answer it, as by the time I had replied, the RfA could have been closed - I didn't realise how long it would be until a bureaucrat was able to close it!
I hope that my actions as an administrator will show you that the trust of the community is warranted - and if you do ever see an action I perform which you think is questionable, please feel free to contact me on my talk page. I know that as admin, I will mistakes - it's part of being human! - but if I do make a mistake, I would like to think that this will be pointed out to me so that I can rectify it (or so that I can explain my action if I believe that it is not in fact a mistake!) -- PhantomSteve/ talk| contribs\ 10:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Sticking to my guns? Kind of you to say. Stubborn obliviousness also fits.... It was obvious you were going to pass but I asked that last bit to give you a chance to make the candidacy spotless. Too bad time ran out. Congratulations with the mop and bucket! Lambanog ( talk) 11:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for commenting at WP:NPOV/N. -- Gavin Collins ( talk| contribs) 18:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Lambanog - Thanks for your participation and support in my recent successful RfA. Your confidence and trust in me is much appreciated. As a new admin I will try hard to keep from wading in too deep over the tops of my waders, nor shall I let the Buffalo intimidate me.-- Mike Cline ( talk) 09:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Lambanog,
you are receiving this message as you voted in VOTE 2 at the recent Community de-Adminship 'Proposal Finalization' Poll. Unfortunately, there is a hitch regarding the "none" vote that can theoretically affect all votes.
1) Background of VOTE 2:
In a working example of CDA; ater the 'discussion and polling phase' is over, if the "rule of thumb" baseline percentage for Support votes has been reached, the bureaucrats can start to decide whether to desysop an admin, based in part on the evidence of the prior debate. This 'baseline' has now been slightly-adjusted to 65% (from 70%) per VOTE 1. VOTE 2 was asking if there is a ballpark area where the community consensus is so strong, that the bureaucrats should consider desysopping 'automatically'. This 'threshold' was set at 80%, and could change pending agreement on the VOTE 2 results.
This was VOTE 2;
This is the VOTE 2 question without any ambiguity;
2) What was wrong with VOTE 2?
Since the poll, it has been suggested that ambiguity in the term "none at all" could have affected some of the votes. Consequently there has been no consensus over what percentage to settle on, or how to create a new compromise percentage. The poll results are summarised here.
3) How to help:
Directly below this querying message, please can you;
I realise that many of you clarified your meaning after your initial vote, but the only realistic way to move forward is to be as inclusive as possible in this vote query. Sorry for the inconvenience,
Matt Lewis ( talk) 14:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
I had originally put this statement on the "discussion" section of the RfA, but I feel that it would be more appropriate here (although I have slightly reworded it, to both make more sense on this page and to sound a bit less rude, which was not my intention!)
I understand that you are disappointed in the result of the RfD and DRV. However, I would suggest that you accept that your Redirect was deleted and that at the review this decision was upheld. Almost every admin candidate that you have asked to comment on this has said that as an editor they might have !voted keep at the RfD, but that as an admin they would have deleted it.
And before you use your analogy that you used on my RfA that you want a doctor who has experience as a patient, I don't think that is a good analogy. Unless you are saying, of course, that if you were to need to have a leg amputated, you would only want to be operated on by an amputee? Or that if you were to be treated for terminal cancer, that you would only want to be treated by a doctor with terminal cancer? When I sign up to a doctor, I don't care if they've ever been ill, or had an operation, or anything like that - I just want to know that they are registered with the British Medical Council, and that they have experience as a doctor.
I might be wrong, of course - perhaps when you register with a new doctor, before you join their practise, you ask the doctor what experience they have had as a patient, and then refuse to have them as your doctor if you are not happy with their answer. If this is the case, then your analogy would be apt - but I do not know anyone who would set this as a standard for their doctor - and let's be honest, your doctor is an important person: admins here are not, they are just maintenance workers.
Anyway, as I said, I thought this would be better on your talk page than on the RfA, as it's more a matter between two editors than a more public one!
Incidently, I gave a link to the DRV discussion after your question. If you want the candidate to evaluate the RfD, then I feel that the DRV should be evaluated - if the candidate agrees with you that the RfD result was incorrect, they will also agree that the DRV result was incorrect; if they think that the RfD result was the correct one, then the DRV isn't likely to change their mind from that!
Regards, -- PhantomSteve/ talk| contribs\ 12:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Actually, re your comment in peer review, could I just check with you whether you felt there was too much active voice near the beginning of the article, or not enough in the rest of it? -- JN 466 15:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi - just wanted to say that I think you are perfectly reasonable in your comments on King's RFA, and that it seems now that you're being unnecessarily attacked. I didn't think literring that RFA with _more_ arguments would be helpful, so just wanted to offer moral support here - though I will be willing to say the same on the RFA if you think it would be helpful. Luminifer ( talk) 08:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
The RfC on the Community de-Adminship proposal was started on the 22nd Feb, and it runs for 28 days. Please note that the existing CDA proposal was (in the end) run as something of a working compromise, so CDA is still largely being floated as an idea.
Also note that, although the RfC is in 'poll format' (Support, Oppose, and Neutral, with Comments underneath), this RfC is still essentially a 'Request for Comment'. Currently, similar comments on CDA's value are being made under all three polls.
Whatever you vote, your vote is welcome!
Regards, Matt Lewis ( talk) 10:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Hey there Lambanog, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot alerting you that Non-free files are not allowed in the user or talk-space. I removed some files that I found on User:Lambanog/Sandbox3. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.
Thank you, -- DASHBot ( talk) 00:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi, if you are reviewing this, please add the under review tag on the GAn page. Cheers. –– Jezhotwells ( talk) 20:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
It's not my birthday. Adabow ( talk) 04:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
You are the one that started the reverting battle, and now framed me? That's low and dirty. My addition on the article is well referenced. Let's discuss in Manila's discussion, this is not over ( Gunkarta ( talk) 16:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)).
I have commented on and tried to address each of your concerns. Could you take another look? Thanks. :) -- mav ( reviews needed) 16:57, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. You can email me if you like, comment on my talk page or leave comments on the FAR page. Whatever method works best for you. -- mav ( reviews needed) 20:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Sometime this week, could you see if your "hold" still needs to be held? :) -- mav ( reviews needed) 02:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
The article has improved a lot since you placed your hold. Please take a look to see if the article can be kept or if it needs more work. Thanks. -- mav ( reviews needed) 03:38, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
I am glad to announce to you that we will be debuting as an organization at the Philippine Youth Congress in Information Technology on September 14 to 17, 2010 at the University of the Philippines, Diliman. Jojit will be Wikimedia Philippines resource speaker at the second day of the conference at the UP Film Center. He will be speaking about Wikipedia and how it revolutionizes the World Wide Web. That will be at 9:00 to 10:00 am. We will also set up a booth at the UP Bahay ng Alumni and we will showcase our existing and future projects. We encourage you to participate in our first major project. We have prepared food and refreshments for you. Please let us know so that we can enlist you to our delegation.-- Exec8 ( talk) 15:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Manila hostage crisis. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 16:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
What an awesome username. :)
- Alvincura ( talk) 17:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi Lambanog. Thanks very much for the The Premium Reviewer's Barnstar, I've only just noticed it, but it is much appreciated. Pyrotec ( talk) 07:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I hope you aren't offended by my reminding you to please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. It's best to be polite, closely follow talk page guidelines, and keep a cool head even if you think others are not. [6] [7] -- Ronz ( talk) 17:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I've removed your request from WP:3O. I'm very confused as to why you could think it could possibly apply in a situation where multiple editors are involved and multiple other venues have already been used for discussion. -- Ronz ( talk) 22:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I've removed the comments I made above from the talk page where you copied them. I've left yours without context rather than remove it as well. The article talk page is no place for such discussions, as I noted above. -- Ronz ( talk) 22:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Please remove your comment [8]. If you want to discuss such topics, do so at ANI or another forum. -- Ronz ( talk) 21:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank you. PhilKnight ( talk) 02:50, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I've responded at ANI, which is where you should be discussing such matters. -- Ronz ( talk) 16:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
At the ANI that you started I've requested that you remove your improper comments from the article talk page, or allow me to do so. I'll be doing so if you don't respond.
I also noted your canvassing for help. -- Ronz ( talk) 15:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Obviously, you're frustrated with the situation. However, please follow WP:DR, rather than make comments like [10] -- Ronz ( talk) 00:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Please do not assume ownership of articles. If you aren't willing to allow your contributions to be edited extensively or be redistributed by others, please do not submit them. Thank you. [11] [12] [13] -- Ronz ( talk) 17:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Just to let you know I have seen your feedback and commented. Elen of the Roads ( talk) 22:47, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi Lambanog, I hope you will support these moves. Thanks
Please justify. -- Truflip99 ( talk) 06:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I've researched online regarding that issue and I stick to my conclusion. However, if the "arrive to" was your only beef, then what drives you to undo the rest of the edits? -- Truflip99 ( talk) 14:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi there, Please do not edit the Transfer of Operations subcategory on Manila Light Rail Transit System Page. Everything placed there is based on the current news on this topic. Jeromesandilanico ( talk) 21:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I'm curious about this question: Agree or disagree: Wikipedia is a better reference than either Citizendium or Encyclopedia Britannica. Why? I see you've contributed occsionally to this discussion which is trying to make RfA a friendlier place to encourage more editors of the right calibre to come forward and run for office. One of the main reasons they are staying away is this. Please don't hesitate to voice your opinion on either page. Regards, -- Kudpung ( talk) 06:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I've removed the new "Health" section you added to Coconut oil because of copyright violations and NPOV/MEDRS problems discussed on the article talk page.
What version of the article is [15]? Is it where you find the info you added here? Turns out, it contains copyright violations, as well as problems discussed at length on the article talk page. Compare to [16] by Bruce Fife. -- Ronz ( talk) 20:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
I've asked for help at the Fringe Theories Noticeboard. -- Ronz ( talk) 20:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
coconut oil. Users are expected to
collaborate with others and avoid editing
disruptively.
In particular, the three-revert rule states that:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's
talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents
consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an
appropriate noticeboard or seek
dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary
page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be
blocked from editing without further notice.
I'm not sure if you're at 3 reverts in a 24 hour period, but you're pretty clearly edit warring against very obvious opposition. Please stop reverting to your preferred version, particularly when there is vocal opposition on the main page and on the talk page.
WLU
(t)
(c) Wikipedia's rules:
simple/
complex 11:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. -- Ronz ( talk) 17:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
When you edit, it is helpful and courteous to leave slightly more descriptive notes than "edit."-- Smokefoot ( talk) 17:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Please leave the maintenance tags to identify problems and get others' help. Thanks! -- Ronz ( talk) 19:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Your editing is being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Editor_preventing_maintenance_tags_to_Mary_G._Enig. -- Ronz ( talk) 17:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Please stop. Continuing to remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia without resolving the problem that the template refers to may be considered disruptive editing. Further edits of this type may result in your being blocked from editing Wikipedia. [17] [18] -- Ronz ( talk) 17:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Could you please focus on content? [19] -- Ronz ( talk) 05:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. [20] -- Ronz ( talk) 19:29, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
This is your last warning; the next time you make personal attacks on other people, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. [21] -- Ronz ( talk) 16:18, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
I thought you might be interested in helping expand and source Price-Pottenger Nutrition Foundation, which I just started, and Weston A. Price Foundation which has been around a while but still needs better sources. Neither are more than organizational biographies, but that still requires some good research and careful writing. Drop in if you want. Cheers, Ocaasi c 08:09, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Can you tell me what's going on with the large LPV changes? I don't know what LPV refers to, and the last one you did pasted over my move of the fatty-acid chart into the health section rather than the lead. Cheers, Ocaasi c 07:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Any changes you make to the main page can be made in a subpage. Right now it looks like a sneaky way of engaging in a slow edit war while retaining plausible deniability. In addition it is discourteous to other editors. If you are really concerned about being able to compare the changes, given it is more of a personal project than something that is actively improving the main page, perhaps you could consider importing the changes to your sub page rather than updating your already-discussed-and-rejected changes to the main page. It will be cleaner, simpler, and it won't look like you're simply testing the attention span of the editors monitoring the coconut oil page. If you are testing the attention span, that's really just a form of edit warring. If you're genuinely forgetting to revert to the "less preferred version", you're just making completely unnecessary work for other editors. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 11:05, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Was in this dramafest: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Problem on BLP noticeboard Mathsci ( talk) 21:35, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
You appear to keep forgetting to revert to your "less preferred version" at coconut oil. On a technicality it could be considered a slow revert war, but more than that it is discourteous to your fellow editors. Please consider making these changes to a subpage instead which will not have to be continually reverted.
Also, your revert to depersonalization disorder added unsourced information and original research. I have re-reverted, but retained a paragraph rather than the bulleted list. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 10:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Regarding the depersonalization disorder article could you specify the exact information you are challenging? There were no inline tags suggesting anything was found wanting nor was there discussion on the talk page clearly laying out any problems that had consensus support. Lambanog ( talk) 12:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Regarding the depersonalization disorder article, I'm sorry if that is the case but I don't see where I removed citations you added. In fact if I recall correctly I was restoring citations you removed. Could you provide the diff so I can see what you are talking about? Regarding the other items, this was not explained on the talk page or edit summaries, so from what I saw it was simply removal of information. Maybe you'd like to explain on the talk page of the article what you've stated here so that others interested in editing it in the future can understand your rationale for the removal of information? You should always attempt to explain such removals. Lambanog ( talk) 18:13, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Your "updating" of your "less preferred version" is looking less like updating a personal parallel version, and now more like simple edit warring. Consider this your first warning - please stop "updating" the page to a version that is not supported by consensus. You have been reverted multiple times by multiple editors, [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], very clearly there is not consensus to support these edits. Either discuss them on the talk page, or stop making them. Please stop gaming the system to make a point. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 10:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Writing is always a balance of inclusion and exclusion. Where to draw the line is a matter or policy, ideology, and taste. I accept there is a difference of opinion here. That's fine. But a slow-edit war from either side is not a way to fix it, and it makes it more difficult for both readers and editors to follow and contribute. Lambanog I'm going to recommend again that I place your version in a talk subpage with a talkpage notice that it is being proposed as an alternate version. Because the current version is not accepted by you, I will tag it with NPOV (I know, ironic).
As marginally uninvolved, or at least marginally neutral with regards to the policy here, I will actually do this now. If LPV is replaced prematurely I will seek page protection (which would lock in one version temporarily; see: Wikipedia:PREFER and m:The_Wrong_Version for a chuckle). That said, Lambanog, you can move content from your draft to the main article through normal editing procedures. You just shouldn't move the whole thing at once, since contentious changes should be handled in manageable chunks. If the difference of opinion cannot be bridged, we'll have an RfC to vote on which draft is more appropriate. Ocaasi c 13:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Note. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 18:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
... at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request re Guinness and hot peppers. Please revisit and let us know if the question is still open. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Please stop disrupting the article talk page and please read WP:TALKNEW and WP:TALKO -- Ronz ( talk) 16:16, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
"Section headings: Because threads are shared by multiple editors (regardless how many have posted so far), no one, including the original poster, "owns" a talk page discussion or its heading. It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better header is appropriate, e.g. one more descriptive of the content of the discussion or the issue discussed, less one-sided, more appropriate for accessibility reasons, etc. To avoid disputes it is best to discuss a heading change with the editor who started the thread, if possible, when a change is likely to be controversial."
Please explain why you believe your version is better, rather focusing once again on me and your need to treat me as an adversary. -- Ronz ( talk) 16:18, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
I see you're edit-warring again. Please stop.
The title I've given it describes the issues. I'll go ahead and try a different title instead, while I await you to explain your preference. -- Ronz ( talk) 00:56, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
As you are a dedicated editor of Philippine articles, could you consider a temporary distraction from your usual editing to apply some local knowledge and help us clean up this problem per foreseeable outcome. It would be much appreciated. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 07:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Mary G. Enig . Users are expected to
collaborate with others and avoid editing
disruptively.
In particular, the three-revert rule states that:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. -- Ronz ( talk) 15:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
ANI here --
Ronz (
talk) 16:39, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. [32] -- Ronz ( talk) 02:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Infant massage. Users are expected to
collaborate with others and avoid editing
disruptively.
In particular, the three-revert rule states that:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Yobol ( talk) 12:53, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Please review the documentation at template:POV. The usage notes state:
You are mis-using the template and have no support from any other editor, while several editors have discussed and disagree with you. Stop replacing the tag. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 13:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
did you know Paris was engaged to fashion model Jason Shaw in may 2002? Darkstar1st ( talk) 20:37, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughtful comment at the NPOV noticeboard yesterday. I did a little homework and have made an additional reply to your comment. Hope you find it relevant. Early morning person ( talk) 19:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
The discussion at the DSN is about bioidentical hormone replacement therapy. If you have genuine concerns about another editor, please bring up your issues at a user request for comment. You should not bring up unrelated concerns, you are interfering with the attempt to genuinely resolve a dispute. You had a chance to use the DRN to resolve issues at coconut oil, and you did not take it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 11:13, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
In this edit, you add 22 pages from a particular journal, incorporating six separate articles. Are you genuinely citing all six of them? Can the text you are verifying be justified by a single article in that range? If not, I would be concerned over syntheses of several sources to venture a conclusion. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 14:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
I have made an edit war report involving you at EWN should you wish to remark or comment there. — TransporterMan ( TALK) 18:05, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
I see that your readdition of a POV tag to the lead of Coconut oil has been made the subject of a new 3RR report. See
POV tags need consensus to be there, just like any other article content. Since you've readded tags many times after others have removed them, this raises the question of whether the tag has consensus to be there. If you believe so, please cite your evidence. Mention anyone who agrees with you that the article is not neutral. If not, it is possible that you will be blocked for edit warring. You are invited to reply in the AN3 report cited above. For full context you should also see the previous edit warring report: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive166#User:Lambanog and User:WLU reported by User:TransporterMan (Result: ).
More background to why you might be blocked can be seen in this comment by Yobol from the older report:
If Yobol is correct that you are one person editing against five others, this is something you should answer. Thank you,
EdJohnston (
talk) 03:05, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but 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.
The complete report of this case is at WP:AN3#User:Lambanog reported by User:TransporterMan (Repost 1) (Result: 48h). EdJohnston ( talk) 19:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
You are wrong. See here. As for not responding, not everyone is in your time zone. I was planning on a response the next time I logged on. Lambanog ( talk) 02:47, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi, the recent edit you made to transclude an RfA was not done correctly and was reverted to allow you to do it properly. My76Strat ( talk) 04:49, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Doc James (
talk ·
contribs ·
email) 20:06, 6 September 2011 (UTC)-- The Utahraptor Talk/ Contribs 15:29, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Your request at WP:RX has received a reply. JanetteDoe ( talk) 16:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Re your edit here [35], see discussion on Talk page, but esp. my recent "reasonable people" section. Yakushima ( talk) 11:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Lambanog. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click
HERE to participate. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 01:15, 6 April 2012 (UTC) |
You are invited to the 3rd Philippine Wiki Conference (WikiCon) on May 26, 2012 9am-1pm at the co.lab.exchange in Pasig City. Please fill this form should you signify interest. -- Exec8 ( talk) 17:45, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
I have removed the NPOV tag you added to this article as it was not obvious what you feal the problem is. If you believe there is a POV problem with the page, please explain the problem on the article's talk page when you add the tag. Thanks. - SummerPhD ( talk) 14:58, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. -- Ronz ( talk) 16:59, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war. Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. -- Ronz ( talk) 21:18, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
The Million Award | ||
For your contributions to bring Philippines (estimated annual readership: 4,327,000) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers. -- Khazar2 ( talk) 12:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC) |
The Million Award is a new initiative to recognize the editors of Wikipedia's most-read content; you can read more about the award and its possible tiers (Quarter Million Award, Half Million Award, and Million Award) at Wikipedia:Million Award. You're also welcome to display this userbox:
This editor won the Million Award for bringing Philippines to Good Article status. |
If I've made any error in this listing, please don't hesitate to correct it; if for any reason you don't feel you deserve it, please don't hesitate to remove it; if you know of any other editor who merits one of these awards, please don't hesitate to give it; if you yourself deserve another award from any of the three tiers, please don't hesitate to take it! Cheers and all best, -- Khazar2 ( talk) 12:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
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) 14:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
|
You are invited to join the discussion here.-- JL 09 q? c 10:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Joseph Estrada. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.-- Eaglestorm ( talk) 11:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did to Talk:Joseph Estrada, you will be blocked from editing. You must read WT:PINOY's discussion first. JL 09 q? c 14:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Talk:Joseph Estrada. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. -- Eaglestorm ( talk) 18:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that you have posted comments to the page Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines in a language other than English. When on the English-language Wikipedia, please always use English, no matter to whom you address your comments. This is so that comments may be comprehensible to the community at large. If the use of another language is unavoidable, please provide a translation of the comments. For more details, see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thank you. -- Eaglestorm ( talk) 05:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. -- SineBot ( talk) 23:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
The article Siling labuyo has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
If not PROD: I suggest merging it with Thai pepper creating a section showing on how it is used in Filipino cuisine. Anyhow, Siling labuyo and Thai pepper have the same biological make-up, same taste, etc.
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 {{
dated prod}}
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 {{
dated prod}}
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.
JL 09
q?
c 03:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Siling labuyo, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siling labuyo. Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. JL 09 q? c 12:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. -- SineBot ( talk) 10:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. -- SineBot ( talk) 17:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
If you look at Germany's or Mexico's history section its 4 times longer than ours ( Philippines) yet they have lesser content, while ours is just subdivided into 4 epochs small but still packed with content. Still condensed and summarized. we don't need to shorten it, just condense it and correct grammar or spelling errors
Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw ( talk) 12:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Ah ok, I understand now. If Wikipedia's Manual of style requires that that the format be in that structure then it should be small caps. I just edited that into capitalized letters because that's the norm. Also, Islam already existed "At the dawn of the 1st Millennium C.E." since according to the article Islam the 1st Islamic states had been established in 632–750 C.E. in Saudi Arabia. It even predates the Classical Period of Philippine History by two centuries. Hence although the Sultanate of Sulu and Maguindanao wasn't established until the 1200s. Muslims have been in the archipelago before that. But in retrospect, I think is should rewrite the sentence to better get the gist of my idea what I really meant is that "In the early years of the 1st millennium there were several states either ruled by Datus, Rajahs and Sultans." Thank You for your vigilance. Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw ( talk) 13:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. -- SineBot ( talk) 17:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Template:Filipino food has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. JL 09 q? c 17:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Doreen Fernandez requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{
hangon}}
to the top of
the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on
the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact
one of these admins to request that they
userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you.
JL 09
q?
c 17:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. -- SineBot ( talk) 03:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
This is re this complaint about disruptive edits to the nascent Sovereignty of the Philippines article.
You're right in your latest comments in response to that complaint that I should have discussed this with you here before opening the complaint. I'm not normally a very contentious editor I'm rarely involved in serious disputes, and WP:dispute resolution is not something I spend a lot of time at. The discussion we've had on the complaint page should have taken place here. let's continue it here.
Straight out, it seems to me that you are the one with POV issues, not me. I just want to get an article in place giving details of this topic which can be referenced by wikilink. I don't think this is the place to discuss article content, though, except as it relates to your disruptive edits.
Some bullet points from WP:TE#Characteristics of problem editors -- my comments in green:
Here are some hints to help you recognise if you or someone else has become a problem editor:
This doesn't speak to the qualifier "often" above, but...
We're only talking about a single article here, so the qualifier "often" doesn't apply, but...
You: "You have had the opportunity to easily include other pertinent points of view but have not done so and have selectively cited portions of various sources to present one viewpoint disregarding other viewpoints even if they were on the same page or the next page of sources you cite. That indicates deliberate omission of pertinent information and that you have written this article with the intent to advocate your preferred point of view."
Me: "If you feel that I have left important points out, please add relevant points which I have missed. Please, though, cite
reliable sources supporting the added material."
I have not accused you of "suppressing information", "censorship" or "denying facts" as far as I can recall. If so, please cite an instance. Indeed if there is anyone accusing anyone of denying facts it is you. What I have accused you of is bias and advocacy and have based that conclusion on rather unambiguous comments that you have made. I assume you believe what you believe and are doing good by proselytizing your belief. But it is not neutral.
You haven't deleted any of my cite-supported material, but...
You: "I could edit the article directly but I think I'd be deleting a lot of it."
The deletion-candidate material would presumably be supported by cited reliable sources, as that describes most of the material in the article. If your NPOV issues are with (as you have indicated) the article not containing material supporting your POV, the proper way to address this would be to add such material with supporting cites, not to delete cite-supported material with which you disagree.
As you say I have not deleted anything. Period.
Me: "Labmbanog, please show cause why you should not be reported as a disruptive editor and/or discuss each of your additional taggings under the individual tags listed below:"
You: "The tags are pretty clear self-evident in what areas I think it is so. Read the above discussion and you will see specific criticism that remains unaddressed."
I wanted a discussion tag-by-tag, working towards addressing your concerns tag-by-tag so as to get the tags removed. You didn't want to talk about it.
You: Furthermore, the article is written mainly to support one point of view. It is essay like in that regard. You have had the opportunity to easily include other pertinent points of view but have not done so and have selectively cited portions of various sources to present one viewpoint disregarding other viewpoints even if they were on the same page or the next page of sources you cite."
I took that as a request by you that I go find sources supporting other pertinent points of view and add those points and the supporting sources to the article in order to address your concerns (work which you should have done yourself if able). I tried, and found nothing. then, later, ...
Me: "If I have missed asserting alternative points of view, it is because I have been unable to find reliable sources supporting alternative points of view (I have tried). I believe that all points of view supported by reliable sources should be given due weight, and I have urged you without success to add cite-supported assertions of such alternative points of view to this article."
I have responded to every query you have made. My tags are very specific. I have referred you to the Philippine-American War article as giving better context and have given you many scenarios and perspectives from which to approach the topic. That you plead an inability to find anything suggests to me either that you are not a good editor or are being deliberately dense and unwilling to write as per WP:WFTE. Furthermore your precipitate reporting of me to ANI without following proper procedure for "disruptive editing" is overkill and displays ignorance or unclear understanding of process. Coming from an admin who should know better raises doubts as to whether WP:AGF should still be applied.
Bullet points from WP:DE#Signs of disruptive editing -- my comments in green:
The only one who continued editing and adding material despite concerns raised as to the appropriateness of it was you.
Also see the bullet points from WP:TE above.
in this edit, you added three {{tl|cn}} tags to statements which I had thought were sufficiently straightforwardly obvious not to require explicit support. I responded to the tags by doing this edit, which just added clutter to the article. One of the supporting sources which I cited in response was a dictionary definition of the word, "Insurgency". That degree of explicit support should not be necessary.
You may think it is unnecessary, but I think it is. I also think you still haven't provided the other side of the story and that citing a dictionary definition in that particular instance is inadequate. An authority willing to say that flat out in the case of Spain and the Philippines is called for.
You certainly have not engaged in consensus building in this case.
Then why is it that I feel I have a better claim to representing consensus than you do?
You've disregarded my request for tag-by-tag explanations of the tags with which you tag-bombed the article
I told you I feel they are self-explanatory. It is better to ask why do you disregard my concerns about POV problems that I have raised from the very beginning?
Discussion on the article talk page appears to be moving in the direction of consensus to move the article to another name, and probably to restructure it. That's fine with me, and I will participate in attempting to arrive at a consensus about specifically how to address the need for an article addressing the details of the independence status of various unsuccessful insurgent movements in the Philippine (questions about which and impacting various other articles relating to the Philippines come up over and over again) within the context of a larger topic which includes those details.
I have withdrawn my disruptive editing complaint prior to its evaluation, and I'm OK with letting the matter go. I urge you, however, to look at and think about the green bits above. You may not agree that I'm on target with all of it, but there is food for thought there. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. -- SineBot ( talk) 03:18, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added such as to the page Filipino cuisine do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used as a platform for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. [1] [2] -- Ronz ( talk) 00:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I notice that you recently added {{ PD-Philippines}} to a large number of images related to the Filipino presidency. Do you have any basis for the claim that these images are in the public domain? The source information doesn't seem to support that. ( ESkog)( Talk) 16:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
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—
Thanks,-- JL 09 q? c 14:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC re: a 'Motion to close', which would dissolve Cda as a proposal. The motion includes an !vote. You have previously commented at this page. Jusdafax 07:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
In good faith I recently proposed to build a new consensus on the fourth paragraph of the History Section of the Philippines article [3] based on the previous consensus version [4] which many editors had worked on for some time. I recently explained the motivations of this previous version and how it came to be [5]. My proposal was a sincere offer to build a new consensus with everybody's opinions and contributions. However, you and Gubernatoria keep reverting this consensus without any justification except your own convictions, and ironically, accuse me of edit warring.
This is a new appeal for consensus-building and a constructive approach by all. Let us start from that previous version and please do not revert the text again. JCRB ( talk) 13:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Lol you reverted an edition we discussed in the Discussion forum. I want to know why. Did I do some mistake or did a historical inaccuracy? On this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Philippines&oldid=335243833.
As far as I know, I based all my conclusions on cited books and internet sources. If I did any mistake please let me know. Thank You. Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw ( talk) 16:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't want to get too off topic on Julian's RFB. Of course I would feel differently if it was as you described. You should be aware that some people find comparisons of sexism or racism to "ageism" to actually be offensive. It does suggest somewhat limited empathy for different genders/races and a poor grasp of the concept of time. -- JayHenry ( talk) 16:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I am not sure what you are trying to do with the addition of a References section, but the addition broke the testcases page. If you want a references section for the documentation examples, you should edit the documentation page, not the template itself. — John Cardinal ( talk) 15:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Please because its already edited.
Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw ( talk) 13:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
My Reply to your discussions expansion: When deliberations go to a voting I assure, you have my vote just as long as my editions get into your version, *wink2x . Although I think that my editions should be in there but you can do with it in whatever fashion you like, minimalize it or whatever but you "Must" include the Negritos, the prince who spread islam and the causes of the Revolution because those things are sooo vital. I can't beleive they arent even mentioned in the lead section and history subsections of this ucrrent edition which in all respects is outdated.
Turly Yours Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw ( talk)( talk) 02:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Re this edit of mine, neither of the VFAs support this. The Mutual Defense Treaty doesn't support it directly either, but it can be construed to do so under article 2. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
when I just habitually clicked on your contributions, I happened to see the template shortcut links you created,
T:cite paper,
T:cite news,
T:cite web, and
T:cite book, following the recommendation at
WP:VPR#Make "T:" a shortcut to refer to templates. You got, in my opinion, rather bad advice there, since as long as T: is no proper namespace alias, those shortcuts are actually residing in normal article space (mainspace), i.e. cross-namespace redirects. That has a number of undesirable side effects, which are detailed at
WP:XNR. Since those pages aren't used yet, could I convince you that we can delete them again? Although the respective speedy deletion criterion
WP:CSD#R2 exempts redirects to template space, for historical reason, the intention is actually to keep mainspace clean of them, and newly created redirects of that kind are usually deleted at
WP:RfD,.
I'm not sure why you find them useful, but maybe there are other ways this can be accomplished.
Amalthea 19:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
addPortletLink('p-tb', 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Cite_news', 'T:Cite news', 't-cite-news', 'Template:Cite news', '', '');
After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.
A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;
You are receiving this message as you have voted in VOTE 3 at the Community de-Adminship 'Proposal Finalization' Poll.
It has been pointed out that VOTE 3 was confusing, and that voters have been assuming that the question was about creating an actual two-phase CDA process. The question is merely about having a two-phase poll on CDA at the eventual RfC, where the community will have their vote (eg a "yes/no for CDA” poll, followed a choice of proposal types perhaps).
As I wrote the question, I'll take responsibility for the confusion. It does make sense if read through to the end, but it certainly wasn't as clear as it should have been, or needed to be!
Please amend your vote if appropriate - it seems that many (if not most) people interpreted the question in the way that was not intended.
Regards, Matt Lewis ( talk) 16:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated Siling mahaba, 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/Siling mahaba. 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.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. JL 09 q?c 14:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I found the relevant RfD and review on these, and I was curious if you've ever tried turning on the "reftools" option under your preferences. Having a {{ cite}} button on the editing toolbar has been a godsend for me, and I thought it might address the concerns that led you to create these shortcuts in the first place.-- otherl left 15:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to weigh in on my RfA. It was successful, in that the community's wish not to grant me the tools at this time was honored. I'm taking all the comments as constructive feedback and hope to become more valuable to the project as a result; I've also discovered several new areas in which to work. Because debating the merits of a candidate can be taxing on the heart and brain, I offer this kitten as a low-allergen, low-stress token of my appreciation. -- otherl left 13:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC) |
Thank you for the kitten. I'm conflicted about whether to reveal I'm allergic or not but in this case I get the feeling it wouldn't really matter and it probably doesn't hurt to accept. Lambanog ( talk) 11:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I saw your addendum to your oppose, but as it was added after the official end of the RfA, it did not seem to make sense to answer it, as by the time I had replied, the RfA could have been closed - I didn't realise how long it would be until a bureaucrat was able to close it!
I hope that my actions as an administrator will show you that the trust of the community is warranted - and if you do ever see an action I perform which you think is questionable, please feel free to contact me on my talk page. I know that as admin, I will mistakes - it's part of being human! - but if I do make a mistake, I would like to think that this will be pointed out to me so that I can rectify it (or so that I can explain my action if I believe that it is not in fact a mistake!) -- PhantomSteve/ talk| contribs\ 10:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Sticking to my guns? Kind of you to say. Stubborn obliviousness also fits.... It was obvious you were going to pass but I asked that last bit to give you a chance to make the candidacy spotless. Too bad time ran out. Congratulations with the mop and bucket! Lambanog ( talk) 11:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for commenting at WP:NPOV/N. -- Gavin Collins ( talk| contribs) 18:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Lambanog - Thanks for your participation and support in my recent successful RfA. Your confidence and trust in me is much appreciated. As a new admin I will try hard to keep from wading in too deep over the tops of my waders, nor shall I let the Buffalo intimidate me.-- Mike Cline ( talk) 09:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Lambanog,
you are receiving this message as you voted in VOTE 2 at the recent Community de-Adminship 'Proposal Finalization' Poll. Unfortunately, there is a hitch regarding the "none" vote that can theoretically affect all votes.
1) Background of VOTE 2:
In a working example of CDA; ater the 'discussion and polling phase' is over, if the "rule of thumb" baseline percentage for Support votes has been reached, the bureaucrats can start to decide whether to desysop an admin, based in part on the evidence of the prior debate. This 'baseline' has now been slightly-adjusted to 65% (from 70%) per VOTE 1. VOTE 2 was asking if there is a ballpark area where the community consensus is so strong, that the bureaucrats should consider desysopping 'automatically'. This 'threshold' was set at 80%, and could change pending agreement on the VOTE 2 results.
This was VOTE 2;
This is the VOTE 2 question without any ambiguity;
2) What was wrong with VOTE 2?
Since the poll, it has been suggested that ambiguity in the term "none at all" could have affected some of the votes. Consequently there has been no consensus over what percentage to settle on, or how to create a new compromise percentage. The poll results are summarised here.
3) How to help:
Directly below this querying message, please can you;
I realise that many of you clarified your meaning after your initial vote, but the only realistic way to move forward is to be as inclusive as possible in this vote query. Sorry for the inconvenience,
Matt Lewis ( talk) 14:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
I had originally put this statement on the "discussion" section of the RfA, but I feel that it would be more appropriate here (although I have slightly reworded it, to both make more sense on this page and to sound a bit less rude, which was not my intention!)
I understand that you are disappointed in the result of the RfD and DRV. However, I would suggest that you accept that your Redirect was deleted and that at the review this decision was upheld. Almost every admin candidate that you have asked to comment on this has said that as an editor they might have !voted keep at the RfD, but that as an admin they would have deleted it.
And before you use your analogy that you used on my RfA that you want a doctor who has experience as a patient, I don't think that is a good analogy. Unless you are saying, of course, that if you were to need to have a leg amputated, you would only want to be operated on by an amputee? Or that if you were to be treated for terminal cancer, that you would only want to be treated by a doctor with terminal cancer? When I sign up to a doctor, I don't care if they've ever been ill, or had an operation, or anything like that - I just want to know that they are registered with the British Medical Council, and that they have experience as a doctor.
I might be wrong, of course - perhaps when you register with a new doctor, before you join their practise, you ask the doctor what experience they have had as a patient, and then refuse to have them as your doctor if you are not happy with their answer. If this is the case, then your analogy would be apt - but I do not know anyone who would set this as a standard for their doctor - and let's be honest, your doctor is an important person: admins here are not, they are just maintenance workers.
Anyway, as I said, I thought this would be better on your talk page than on the RfA, as it's more a matter between two editors than a more public one!
Incidently, I gave a link to the DRV discussion after your question. If you want the candidate to evaluate the RfD, then I feel that the DRV should be evaluated - if the candidate agrees with you that the RfD result was incorrect, they will also agree that the DRV result was incorrect; if they think that the RfD result was the correct one, then the DRV isn't likely to change their mind from that!
Regards, -- PhantomSteve/ talk| contribs\ 12:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Actually, re your comment in peer review, could I just check with you whether you felt there was too much active voice near the beginning of the article, or not enough in the rest of it? -- JN 466 15:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi - just wanted to say that I think you are perfectly reasonable in your comments on King's RFA, and that it seems now that you're being unnecessarily attacked. I didn't think literring that RFA with _more_ arguments would be helpful, so just wanted to offer moral support here - though I will be willing to say the same on the RFA if you think it would be helpful. Luminifer ( talk) 08:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
The RfC on the Community de-Adminship proposal was started on the 22nd Feb, and it runs for 28 days. Please note that the existing CDA proposal was (in the end) run as something of a working compromise, so CDA is still largely being floated as an idea.
Also note that, although the RfC is in 'poll format' (Support, Oppose, and Neutral, with Comments underneath), this RfC is still essentially a 'Request for Comment'. Currently, similar comments on CDA's value are being made under all three polls.
Whatever you vote, your vote is welcome!
Regards, Matt Lewis ( talk) 10:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Hey there Lambanog, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot alerting you that Non-free files are not allowed in the user or talk-space. I removed some files that I found on User:Lambanog/Sandbox3. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.
Thank you, -- DASHBot ( talk) 00:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi, if you are reviewing this, please add the under review tag on the GAn page. Cheers. –– Jezhotwells ( talk) 20:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
It's not my birthday. Adabow ( talk) 04:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
You are the one that started the reverting battle, and now framed me? That's low and dirty. My addition on the article is well referenced. Let's discuss in Manila's discussion, this is not over ( Gunkarta ( talk) 16:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)).
I have commented on and tried to address each of your concerns. Could you take another look? Thanks. :) -- mav ( reviews needed) 16:57, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. You can email me if you like, comment on my talk page or leave comments on the FAR page. Whatever method works best for you. -- mav ( reviews needed) 20:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Sometime this week, could you see if your "hold" still needs to be held? :) -- mav ( reviews needed) 02:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
The article has improved a lot since you placed your hold. Please take a look to see if the article can be kept or if it needs more work. Thanks. -- mav ( reviews needed) 03:38, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
I am glad to announce to you that we will be debuting as an organization at the Philippine Youth Congress in Information Technology on September 14 to 17, 2010 at the University of the Philippines, Diliman. Jojit will be Wikimedia Philippines resource speaker at the second day of the conference at the UP Film Center. He will be speaking about Wikipedia and how it revolutionizes the World Wide Web. That will be at 9:00 to 10:00 am. We will also set up a booth at the UP Bahay ng Alumni and we will showcase our existing and future projects. We encourage you to participate in our first major project. We have prepared food and refreshments for you. Please let us know so that we can enlist you to our delegation.-- Exec8 ( talk) 15:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Manila hostage crisis. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 16:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
What an awesome username. :)
- Alvincura ( talk) 17:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi Lambanog. Thanks very much for the The Premium Reviewer's Barnstar, I've only just noticed it, but it is much appreciated. Pyrotec ( talk) 07:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I hope you aren't offended by my reminding you to please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. It's best to be polite, closely follow talk page guidelines, and keep a cool head even if you think others are not. [6] [7] -- Ronz ( talk) 17:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I've removed your request from WP:3O. I'm very confused as to why you could think it could possibly apply in a situation where multiple editors are involved and multiple other venues have already been used for discussion. -- Ronz ( talk) 22:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I've removed the comments I made above from the talk page where you copied them. I've left yours without context rather than remove it as well. The article talk page is no place for such discussions, as I noted above. -- Ronz ( talk) 22:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Please remove your comment [8]. If you want to discuss such topics, do so at ANI or another forum. -- Ronz ( talk) 21:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank you. PhilKnight ( talk) 02:50, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I've responded at ANI, which is where you should be discussing such matters. -- Ronz ( talk) 16:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
At the ANI that you started I've requested that you remove your improper comments from the article talk page, or allow me to do so. I'll be doing so if you don't respond.
I also noted your canvassing for help. -- Ronz ( talk) 15:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Obviously, you're frustrated with the situation. However, please follow WP:DR, rather than make comments like [10] -- Ronz ( talk) 00:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Please do not assume ownership of articles. If you aren't willing to allow your contributions to be edited extensively or be redistributed by others, please do not submit them. Thank you. [11] [12] [13] -- Ronz ( talk) 17:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Just to let you know I have seen your feedback and commented. Elen of the Roads ( talk) 22:47, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi Lambanog, I hope you will support these moves. Thanks
Please justify. -- Truflip99 ( talk) 06:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I've researched online regarding that issue and I stick to my conclusion. However, if the "arrive to" was your only beef, then what drives you to undo the rest of the edits? -- Truflip99 ( talk) 14:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi there, Please do not edit the Transfer of Operations subcategory on Manila Light Rail Transit System Page. Everything placed there is based on the current news on this topic. Jeromesandilanico ( talk) 21:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I'm curious about this question: Agree or disagree: Wikipedia is a better reference than either Citizendium or Encyclopedia Britannica. Why? I see you've contributed occsionally to this discussion which is trying to make RfA a friendlier place to encourage more editors of the right calibre to come forward and run for office. One of the main reasons they are staying away is this. Please don't hesitate to voice your opinion on either page. Regards, -- Kudpung ( talk) 06:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I've removed the new "Health" section you added to Coconut oil because of copyright violations and NPOV/MEDRS problems discussed on the article talk page.
What version of the article is [15]? Is it where you find the info you added here? Turns out, it contains copyright violations, as well as problems discussed at length on the article talk page. Compare to [16] by Bruce Fife. -- Ronz ( talk) 20:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
I've asked for help at the Fringe Theories Noticeboard. -- Ronz ( talk) 20:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
coconut oil. Users are expected to
collaborate with others and avoid editing
disruptively.
In particular, the three-revert rule states that:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's
talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents
consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an
appropriate noticeboard or seek
dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary
page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be
blocked from editing without further notice.
I'm not sure if you're at 3 reverts in a 24 hour period, but you're pretty clearly edit warring against very obvious opposition. Please stop reverting to your preferred version, particularly when there is vocal opposition on the main page and on the talk page.
WLU
(t)
(c) Wikipedia's rules:
simple/
complex 11:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. -- Ronz ( talk) 17:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
When you edit, it is helpful and courteous to leave slightly more descriptive notes than "edit."-- Smokefoot ( talk) 17:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Please leave the maintenance tags to identify problems and get others' help. Thanks! -- Ronz ( talk) 19:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Your editing is being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Editor_preventing_maintenance_tags_to_Mary_G._Enig. -- Ronz ( talk) 17:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Please stop. Continuing to remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia without resolving the problem that the template refers to may be considered disruptive editing. Further edits of this type may result in your being blocked from editing Wikipedia. [17] [18] -- Ronz ( talk) 17:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Could you please focus on content? [19] -- Ronz ( talk) 05:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. [20] -- Ronz ( talk) 19:29, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
This is your last warning; the next time you make personal attacks on other people, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. [21] -- Ronz ( talk) 16:18, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
I thought you might be interested in helping expand and source Price-Pottenger Nutrition Foundation, which I just started, and Weston A. Price Foundation which has been around a while but still needs better sources. Neither are more than organizational biographies, but that still requires some good research and careful writing. Drop in if you want. Cheers, Ocaasi c 08:09, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Can you tell me what's going on with the large LPV changes? I don't know what LPV refers to, and the last one you did pasted over my move of the fatty-acid chart into the health section rather than the lead. Cheers, Ocaasi c 07:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Any changes you make to the main page can be made in a subpage. Right now it looks like a sneaky way of engaging in a slow edit war while retaining plausible deniability. In addition it is discourteous to other editors. If you are really concerned about being able to compare the changes, given it is more of a personal project than something that is actively improving the main page, perhaps you could consider importing the changes to your sub page rather than updating your already-discussed-and-rejected changes to the main page. It will be cleaner, simpler, and it won't look like you're simply testing the attention span of the editors monitoring the coconut oil page. If you are testing the attention span, that's really just a form of edit warring. If you're genuinely forgetting to revert to the "less preferred version", you're just making completely unnecessary work for other editors. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 11:05, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Was in this dramafest: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Problem on BLP noticeboard Mathsci ( talk) 21:35, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
You appear to keep forgetting to revert to your "less preferred version" at coconut oil. On a technicality it could be considered a slow revert war, but more than that it is discourteous to your fellow editors. Please consider making these changes to a subpage instead which will not have to be continually reverted.
Also, your revert to depersonalization disorder added unsourced information and original research. I have re-reverted, but retained a paragraph rather than the bulleted list. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 10:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Regarding the depersonalization disorder article could you specify the exact information you are challenging? There were no inline tags suggesting anything was found wanting nor was there discussion on the talk page clearly laying out any problems that had consensus support. Lambanog ( talk) 12:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Regarding the depersonalization disorder article, I'm sorry if that is the case but I don't see where I removed citations you added. In fact if I recall correctly I was restoring citations you removed. Could you provide the diff so I can see what you are talking about? Regarding the other items, this was not explained on the talk page or edit summaries, so from what I saw it was simply removal of information. Maybe you'd like to explain on the talk page of the article what you've stated here so that others interested in editing it in the future can understand your rationale for the removal of information? You should always attempt to explain such removals. Lambanog ( talk) 18:13, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Your "updating" of your "less preferred version" is looking less like updating a personal parallel version, and now more like simple edit warring. Consider this your first warning - please stop "updating" the page to a version that is not supported by consensus. You have been reverted multiple times by multiple editors, [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], very clearly there is not consensus to support these edits. Either discuss them on the talk page, or stop making them. Please stop gaming the system to make a point. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 10:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Writing is always a balance of inclusion and exclusion. Where to draw the line is a matter or policy, ideology, and taste. I accept there is a difference of opinion here. That's fine. But a slow-edit war from either side is not a way to fix it, and it makes it more difficult for both readers and editors to follow and contribute. Lambanog I'm going to recommend again that I place your version in a talk subpage with a talkpage notice that it is being proposed as an alternate version. Because the current version is not accepted by you, I will tag it with NPOV (I know, ironic).
As marginally uninvolved, or at least marginally neutral with regards to the policy here, I will actually do this now. If LPV is replaced prematurely I will seek page protection (which would lock in one version temporarily; see: Wikipedia:PREFER and m:The_Wrong_Version for a chuckle). That said, Lambanog, you can move content from your draft to the main article through normal editing procedures. You just shouldn't move the whole thing at once, since contentious changes should be handled in manageable chunks. If the difference of opinion cannot be bridged, we'll have an RfC to vote on which draft is more appropriate. Ocaasi c 13:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Note. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 18:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
... at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request re Guinness and hot peppers. Please revisit and let us know if the question is still open. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Please stop disrupting the article talk page and please read WP:TALKNEW and WP:TALKO -- Ronz ( talk) 16:16, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
"Section headings: Because threads are shared by multiple editors (regardless how many have posted so far), no one, including the original poster, "owns" a talk page discussion or its heading. It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better header is appropriate, e.g. one more descriptive of the content of the discussion or the issue discussed, less one-sided, more appropriate for accessibility reasons, etc. To avoid disputes it is best to discuss a heading change with the editor who started the thread, if possible, when a change is likely to be controversial."
Please explain why you believe your version is better, rather focusing once again on me and your need to treat me as an adversary. -- Ronz ( talk) 16:18, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
I see you're edit-warring again. Please stop.
The title I've given it describes the issues. I'll go ahead and try a different title instead, while I await you to explain your preference. -- Ronz ( talk) 00:56, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
As you are a dedicated editor of Philippine articles, could you consider a temporary distraction from your usual editing to apply some local knowledge and help us clean up this problem per foreseeable outcome. It would be much appreciated. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 07:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Mary G. Enig . Users are expected to
collaborate with others and avoid editing
disruptively.
In particular, the three-revert rule states that:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. -- Ronz ( talk) 15:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
ANI here --
Ronz (
talk) 16:39, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. [32] -- Ronz ( talk) 02:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Infant massage. Users are expected to
collaborate with others and avoid editing
disruptively.
In particular, the three-revert rule states that:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Yobol ( talk) 12:53, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Please review the documentation at template:POV. The usage notes state:
You are mis-using the template and have no support from any other editor, while several editors have discussed and disagree with you. Stop replacing the tag. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 13:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
did you know Paris was engaged to fashion model Jason Shaw in may 2002? Darkstar1st ( talk) 20:37, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughtful comment at the NPOV noticeboard yesterday. I did a little homework and have made an additional reply to your comment. Hope you find it relevant. Early morning person ( talk) 19:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
The discussion at the DSN is about bioidentical hormone replacement therapy. If you have genuine concerns about another editor, please bring up your issues at a user request for comment. You should not bring up unrelated concerns, you are interfering with the attempt to genuinely resolve a dispute. You had a chance to use the DRN to resolve issues at coconut oil, and you did not take it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 11:13, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
In this edit, you add 22 pages from a particular journal, incorporating six separate articles. Are you genuinely citing all six of them? Can the text you are verifying be justified by a single article in that range? If not, I would be concerned over syntheses of several sources to venture a conclusion. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 14:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
I have made an edit war report involving you at EWN should you wish to remark or comment there. — TransporterMan ( TALK) 18:05, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
I see that your readdition of a POV tag to the lead of Coconut oil has been made the subject of a new 3RR report. See
POV tags need consensus to be there, just like any other article content. Since you've readded tags many times after others have removed them, this raises the question of whether the tag has consensus to be there. If you believe so, please cite your evidence. Mention anyone who agrees with you that the article is not neutral. If not, it is possible that you will be blocked for edit warring. You are invited to reply in the AN3 report cited above. For full context you should also see the previous edit warring report: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive166#User:Lambanog and User:WLU reported by User:TransporterMan (Result: ).
More background to why you might be blocked can be seen in this comment by Yobol from the older report:
If Yobol is correct that you are one person editing against five others, this is something you should answer. Thank you,
EdJohnston (
talk) 03:05, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but 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.
The complete report of this case is at WP:AN3#User:Lambanog reported by User:TransporterMan (Repost 1) (Result: 48h). EdJohnston ( talk) 19:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
You are wrong. See here. As for not responding, not everyone is in your time zone. I was planning on a response the next time I logged on. Lambanog ( talk) 02:47, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi, the recent edit you made to transclude an RfA was not done correctly and was reverted to allow you to do it properly. My76Strat ( talk) 04:49, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Doc James (
talk ·
contribs ·
email) 20:06, 6 September 2011 (UTC)-- The Utahraptor Talk/ Contribs 15:29, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Your request at WP:RX has received a reply. JanetteDoe ( talk) 16:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Re your edit here [35], see discussion on Talk page, but esp. my recent "reasonable people" section. Yakushima ( talk) 11:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Lambanog. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click
HERE to participate. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 01:15, 6 April 2012 (UTC) |
You are invited to the 3rd Philippine Wiki Conference (WikiCon) on May 26, 2012 9am-1pm at the co.lab.exchange in Pasig City. Please fill this form should you signify interest. -- Exec8 ( talk) 17:45, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
I have removed the NPOV tag you added to this article as it was not obvious what you feal the problem is. If you believe there is a POV problem with the page, please explain the problem on the article's talk page when you add the tag. Thanks. - SummerPhD ( talk) 14:58, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. -- Ronz ( talk) 16:59, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war. Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. -- Ronz ( talk) 21:18, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
The Million Award | ||
For your contributions to bring Philippines (estimated annual readership: 4,327,000) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers. -- Khazar2 ( talk) 12:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC) |
The Million Award is a new initiative to recognize the editors of Wikipedia's most-read content; you can read more about the award and its possible tiers (Quarter Million Award, Half Million Award, and Million Award) at Wikipedia:Million Award. You're also welcome to display this userbox:
This editor won the Million Award for bringing Philippines to Good Article status. |
If I've made any error in this listing, please don't hesitate to correct it; if for any reason you don't feel you deserve it, please don't hesitate to remove it; if you know of any other editor who merits one of these awards, please don't hesitate to give it; if you yourself deserve another award from any of the three tiers, please don't hesitate to take it! Cheers and all best, -- Khazar2 ( talk) 12:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
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) 14:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)