User talk:Xeltran/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
A user that i can always Trust Jeb2003 (talk) 15:58, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

North Borneo dispute

Just to say that I was about to change the word to "interpret" as well, missed tht by a few seconds. I agree that "interprets" is connotatively more neutral

Cheers ;) --Danazach (talk) 13:37, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
HAPPY NEW YEAR 2013!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Jeb2003 (talk) 16:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Macclesfield Bank

I object to citing the source is not English in your removal, as WP:NONENG states English sources are preferred, not required. However, citing Sina being a non-3rd-party source is acceptable. GotR Talk 20:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I opined it would be best for everyone else to easily verify the source if it was in a language that is readable by many, especially since the article is controversial. It would also have been fine for me if a short English footnote was supplied but then again IP editor did state that the source is a "Chinese authority mouthpiece" so we'll have to find other sources for that now. Xeltran (talk) 05:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 1

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

St. Joseph School – La Salle

Hello, and thanks for creating this article. It's been tagged for notability. high schools are nearly always found to be notable but only if they have reliable sources. Could you please look it over and see if you can add sources? Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 20:51, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Your request for rollback

Hi Xeltran/Archive 2. After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

  • Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
  • Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
  • Rollback should never be used to edit war.
  • If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
  • Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! v/r - TP 15:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Feb 2013

I noticed you reverted another users edit on the |NIC countries page, citing Sri lanka is not a NIC. Please read this source (see pg. 81 on Google Books)Eng.Bandara (talk) 09:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

The three sources (Guillén, Waugh and Mankiw) that you used for the entry for Sri Lanka didn't list it as a Newly Industrialized Country, unlike for the other countries on the table. However, I placed Sri Lanka in the Other NICs section with the corresponding reference that you gave. Cheers! Xeltran (talk) 11:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
That's seems acceptable. Eng.Bandara (talk) 20:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edits to Bantayan Island

I'm not sure the island is under the administrative control of Bantayan municipality. Do you have a source for that? There are after all three municipalities on the island. In fact, I don't think the island is really under the control of any of them, whatever "under the control of" may mean.

Did you have any reason to remove the island's dimensions from the lead? They're not anywhere else I don't think. And now the infobox has been pruned, there's not much there either. Same with lightstations - it's all very well saying to put them in the infrastructure section, but there isn't one. Maybe the transport section will be the place (what's left of it).

Similarly the education section has been over-compressed. I don't think those two colleges are notable, they are just examples of available secondary/tertiary education.

I'm not sure what level of detail wikipedia actually wants. This article now has tags to say it's under-cited as well as too detailed with citation overkill. My own feeling (about any topic) is that a user should be able to gather full information from the single visit, without necessarily having to look further.

John of Cromer in China Philippines (talk) mytime= Fri 16:33, wikitime= 08:33, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, John of Cromer in China Philippines! Firstly, I corrected the part which states that only Bantayan (municipality) has "administrative control" over the whole island. By "control", I meant which municipality has jurisdiction over it, a common feature in all administrative divisions of the Philippines. I found out that three municipalities actually "share" the island, and so I reflected this information in the lead already.
I may have overlooked the dimensions that you were talking about when I was editing the infobox, but then again, I (or you, or any other editor for that matter) can just place it back anyway. As regards the lightstations, I haven't made the Infrastructure section...yet.
I was just concerned about the large part of the previous Education section, which more or less, defined already what Education in the Philippines is. I think it is unlikely that people looking at the island article would want to know the whole history of Philippine education there. The article is about Bantayan island, thus anything else in the article's sections should be specifically relevant to the island too. I get your point about a user should be able to gather full information from the single visit, without necessarily having to look further however, there are certain information that is better moved to another article, or else we risk having to read a very large Bantayan island article, where almost half of the contents are not about the island itself. Also, please note that I also found some content which I believe do not conform to Wikipedia's policies on original research, verifiability and neutral point of view, thus my removal.
Taking a look at the Manila article (a current good article by WP standards) will give editors an idea on how to cite information without going too overboard and on how to structure the layout of the Bantayan island article in a similar way. For instance, at the Natural environment section, the notes on the conservation status of some fauna are, I believe, unnecessary since people can just click on their respective articles to know more about the species. There are also certain non-notable and intricately detailed information presently contained in the article (e.g. "The first car came to Bantayan island – a second-hand Dodge owned by Kapitan Casimiro Batiancila of Santa Fe").
Thank you for discussing your views here. Please be assured that I was acting in good faith when I was editing the article. As always, happy editing! Xeltran (talk) 09:18, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, a lot of the uncited stuff came off the official Bantayan municipality web site. There's a lot of garbage there, and very biased. It is all pro the ruling family (who comprise a chunk of the local government officers). I thought I had given balance to the section on bossism. It is after all a big Philippine problem; there are wiki articles on it, and my citation was from highly-respected authors.

I don't usually revert edits, but I do feel inclined to put a little back - for instance dimensions, and maybe lightstations (within transport). I don't think there's enough infrastructure to make a section of its own - blackouts from the power company, how often the water gets cut off.

Other things (housing, fishing, shopping) I don't know how to get credible references - I wouldn't have thought there was really any source material. They were really observations on actuality, together with photos.

As regards control over the islands, it's a moot point whether there is any as such, or what it is. It might be better to remove that sentence, or reword it.

I'll look at Manila.

John of Cromer in China Philippines (talk) mytime= Fri 18:33, wikitime= 10:33, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

The official website of the municipal government can be used as a source for established facts like the size of the island, history, etc. Content, which you might think is controversial, should be supported by reliable sources. Secondary sources are usually desired over primary ones, except in some cases. Other details regarding apparent bossism are better off placed in Politics of the Philippines (since this isn't really about the island at all) and must be worded in a neutral manner so as not be be accused of giving undue weight to one idea over the other.
The light stations of the island can comprise a part of the planned Infrastructure section. The previous content of the article are readily retrievable anytime through the History tab. If details regarding the light houses are the only verifiable information we have regarding the island's infrastructure, then we'll just have to contend ourselves with it. As regards housing, fishing and shopping, if there are no credible sources supporting the details regarding it, it would be better not to place them at all. Like you said, these were your observations - which would qualify as original research. Unverifiable text are likely to be challenged and removed eventually.
The sentence, "The island is under the administrative jurisdictions of the municipalities of Bantayan, Madridejos and Santa Fe," is just to state that parts of Bantayan island are incorporated by various Philippine municipalities, and do not mean anything else. Xeltran (talk) 11:34, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


= are challenged and removed pdq :-)

The citation for bossism - if you'd read it, you'd see it was all about Bantayan and its #1 family. [1] Maybe I can include it as a "Further reading" section. Would that pass? John of Cromer in China Philippines (talk) mytime= Fri 21:57, wikitime= 13:57, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

It would probably be better off in the Bantayan, Cebu article as it is about politics in the island, and not about the island itself which is the main subject of Bantayan Island, but then again, seeing as it's about "bossism" (as you put it) in general, why not place it as Politics of the Philippines instead? The book's name is, afterall, Philippine Politics and Society in the Twentieth Century.
Be sure to place such information in a balanced and impartial tone. In fact, the word "bossism" itself is already contentious. To wit...
... is already non-neutral (see MOS:OPED and WP:SYNTH). Not to mention that the source was an opinion blog post. Also...


This part is giving the Sidel research undue weight. The article on Political dynasties in the Philippines gives a more balanced view of the subject. You can see details regarding Philippine political dynasties, but nowhere is it discussed there if it's good or bad. That's because the neutrality policy in Wikipedia implores editors to prefer nonjudgmental language.
Also, editors have to ask themselves regarding that particular passage: is it notable in the first place? Is the subject even that prominent to warrant a separate section on an article about Bantayan island? The article on Political dynasties in the Philippines mentions a handful of surnames that are identified political dynasties, however, if you compare it to the Escarios of Bantayan, the differences in notability and prominence are clear. Sure, you might list their names, but their notability isn't established at all (see WP:NMCHK). Ok, so a single family has been governing that island for a while already...and then what? If you ask me, I do not currently see the need to include that section in the article (or in any article for that matter) because I do not see it's encyclopedic value. I quote WP:IINFO, "[M]erely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Xeltran (talk) 14:51, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
P.S. Perhaps your reference on Sidel's research can be placed at Political dynasties in the Philippines, but without the names of the Escarios. But then again, the decision is up to you. Xeltran (talk) 15:58, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

"bossism" is not my word - Sidel, John (1999) Capital, coercion, and crime: bossism in the Philippines. Contemporary issues in Asia & the Pacific . Stanford University Press, Palo Alto, USA. ISBN 9780804737463

Section you quote above was already reduced.

I placed a "See also" at the end of Bantayan, Cebu with reference.

I still think island is actually within Cebu province jurisdiction rather than the municipalities' it comprises. I think the original lead was OK - did you change for any reason, i.e. standardisation, because I see similar wording on other pages? (But I don't like it)

John of Cromer in China Philippines (talk) mytime= Sat 08:57, wikitime= 00:57, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you're correct. Bantayan Island is within the jurisdiction of the provincial government of Cebu, however, the island is more specifically under the municipalities of Bantayan, Madridejos and Santa Fe (all of which are within Cebu province). See this image for reference. In hierarchical Philippine administrative division, it would be: Bantayan Island > Municipalities of Bantayan, Madridejos and Santa Fe > Province of Cebu > Central Visayas > Philippines. Other places in the country are, more or less, classified as such. Xeltran (talk) 06:13, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Sultanate of Sulu

Please note that the centralized discussion on User:XavierGreen's proposal to list the Sultanate of Sulu as "extant" is taking place at here. TDL (talk) 20:53, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

PUPCOED

Hello, I am one of the administrators of PUP College of Education. Please stop editing our page. Our college wrote every section of it for our College Accreditation and we want to inform our students. WE BEG. PLEASE STOP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.57.37.123 (talk) 08:41, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

MSU-IIT Page

Hi, Xeltran. I truly appreciate your efforts for our page. Do you work at MSU-IIT? You reverted all the revisions that our team has made for the article on MSU-IIT. Given that, maybe you can share your expertise with us by helping us revise those pieces of information we've posted instead of only reverting to your article?

The revisions made by us are the latest information on recognitions and such. We hope you can truly help us. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beatboxxx (talk • contribs) 15:07, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello! Let me summarize the explanations of my edits in the article in a few points:
  • A sentence in the first paragraph of the lead, the Institute has continually provided quality education to thousands of students from various parts of the Philippines and abroad, is dubious and qualifies as academic boosterism. The source provided is a blog, which is a self-published source and does not qualify as a reliable source for the article. Please also note that if you are the owner (or if you know the owner of the blog), linking your website in Wikipedia as a reference might serve as conflict of interest when editing because your actions might be seen as promotional or advertising (see also WP:CITESPAM and WP:PROMOTION).
  • In the Institutional Recognitions section, it is advised that you phrase the items in prose form so that these will have encyclopedic context and will thus pass Wikipedia's guidelines on notability. Be sure to write the sentences in a neutral manner. As much as possible, avoid words that will introduce bias. As per guidelines discouraging academic boosterism, "[d]o not praise an academic institution; describe it using neutral language and verifiable facts."
  • In the Undergraduate Programs section, it is generally discouraged to list down information in a directory-style manner. As per WP:UNIGUIDE: [b]ecause Wikipedia is not a directory, do not attempt to list every major, degree, or program offered in this or any section.
You can take a look at University of the Philippines Los Baños, (about another Philippine university) which is a good article by Wikipedia standards, if you wish to see how to present the article about MSU-IIT in a similar way. Happy editing! Xeltran (talk) 15:28, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
A barnstar from one of the Sabahan citizen. Special for your hard work combating vandalism on Sabah article. :) — иz нίpнόp ʜᴇʟᴘ! 06:37, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Image CSDs

Hi Xeltran. Thanks for your work tagging copyvio images for deletion. I noticed that you tagged these university images under Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G12, which is usually used to tag pages rather than images, unless copyrighted text has been copied and pasted into the description, etc. In future, you should generally tag copyvio images with Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#F9. Thanks. INeverCry 16:54, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Oops, I missed that part, my apologies. Thanks for the heads up! Xeltran (talk) 16:57, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
That's ok. It was an easy fix. Keep up the good work. INeverCry 17:00, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


Lahad Datu

As the landing did not took place in Lahad Datu but in another part of the Lahad Datu District, a link to Lahad Datu does not make clear, if the town or the district is meant. As Lahad Datu District does not exist, the pipe construction Lahad Datu District is necessary. This has nothing to do with the WP rule Do not "fix" links to redirects that are not broken. Cheers, --Cccefalon (talk • contribs) 15:40, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but they did land somewhere in Lahad Datu. Also, please take note that the utilized reference for that part of the article only says, His group landed in the village of Tunduao in Lahad Datu town in Sabah. I might have overlooked one of the sources there saying otherwise, so should you have any other references that specify such, feel free to make the necessary edits. I also removed Kg. and substituted it for village as Kg. is not very a familiar term. Xeltran (talk) 15:51, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
They indeed arrived somewhere in District Lahad Datu. But the article texts in his actual form states now "they arrived by boat in Lahad Datu, Sabah". That is simply wrong.
Furthermore, in Malaysia there is a clear principle of classifiers. E.g. islands have the classifier Pulau, rivers the Sungai and villages the Kampong or Kg.. It is integral part of the name. Authoritative in that is e.g. the set of district maps of JUPEM. The expression "village Kg. Tanduo" would be precise. --Cccefalon (talk • contribs) 09:58, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
From how I understand Wikipedia:MOSMALAYSIA#Places, it would be better to use they are holed up at the village of Tanduo rather than they are holed up at Kg. Tanduo. But, in the case of Lahad Datu as a district or town, I am ok in placing, they arrived by boat in the district of Lahad Datu, Sabah instead. Please share your suggestions at the article's Talk page instead. I will try to look into it later. Thanks! Xeltran (talk) 10:09, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Your warning on List of sultans of Sulu

I suggest you read WP:3RR before you cite it in an effort to WP:Bully someone into accepting your viewpoint. There are two parts you obviously missed in the policy. The policy states

"An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of the rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation."

The two parts you missed are as follows

1. "more than three reverts" - What the editor doing was not reverting. What the editor was doing is editing. 3RR specifically refers to using a revert tool, not simply making an edit. There is nothing against making three edits in a 24 hour period.

2. "on a single page within a 24-hour period" - The editor's two edits occurred over a time of 27 hours, not 24.

The editor also conducted only 2 edits that you reverted (three total, but you reverted two of his edits at one time). The policy does NOT state the third revert is the violation. The policy allows for 3 reverts, THEN the 4th revert is the violation. Therefore, even if they were considered reverts, and they were within the time limit, the editor has TWO more edits before he would be in violation, not one.

Also, discussions about content of an article should be conducted on the article's talk page, not on a user's talk page. By using the user's talk page, you are limiting the discussion to yourself and the user, thus not allowing for consensus. You were simply stating to the user why you were correct.

After reviewing the two edits the other user made, I have reverted the article back to their state. Their source is an official website of the Philippines government, and is a considerable reliable source. You may take it to the talk page of the article for further discussion, however, I doubt it will be overturned, because even the official website for the Royal House of Sulu verifies his version. While that site is not third party and can't be used on the article, it can be used for verification of information independently.

Thank you, and happy editing! --Fbifriday (talk) 08:51, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:3RR states that a "revert" means any edit...that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part...It does not only concern on the use of the Revert tool. Second, it was more of informing the editor, due to his contributions history over several related articles wherein these have been left unexplained, regarding 3RR, and was not meant as intimidation. If it was taken as the latter, I apologize. There are already a number of instances wherein that topic has been discussed, whether in that article's Talk page or in another article's, see here, here and here. In fact, I have already presented my reasons why that chart alone cannot be wholly used as a source (see here). It was never in my intention to engage in an edit war. Do not misunderstand. Xeltran (talk) 09:05, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Please take specific content about the article to the article's talk page. I will respond to your reasoning about the chart there as well. --Fbifriday (talk) 09:08, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Please take a look at Talk:List_of_sultans_of_Sulu#Misc._edits. I hope you can give your views on the matter at hand. Xeltran (talk) 09:14, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

March 2013

"As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. Remove material only where you have good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage. The sections below offer specific guidance on common problems. " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV Yosri (talk) 16:46, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Other than the issue on neutrality, the details on Ops Dulat are already on another section. I already placed that in the edit summary. Xeltran (talk) 16:48, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
First, there is no mention of Ops Daulat there, second part, the wording is directly from sources and not my personal opinion. Yosri (talk) 16:53, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
So what does this mean then? Taken from the section I pointed out, According to IGP Ismail Omar and other police sources, the army and police have begun mopping-up operations codenamed "Ops Sulu" now "Ops Daulat" (Operation Sovereignty). If you have related information that is not found in the section, you can add them if you want. Xeltran (talk) 16:55, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Oh. I miss the second part, only saw the Ops Sulu. I will update from there then. Yosri (talk) 16:57, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Polytechnic University of the Philippines College of Education

I see that following the AFD you converted the article to a redirect with this edit with the comment "Merged content to Polytechnic University of the Philippines#Academics. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polytechnic University of the Philippines College of Education." I can't actually see where any of this material appeared in the article. Did you forget? Have I missed something? I shall now be doing a merge myself but let me know if I have missed your merge so I can revert myself. Thincat (talk) 11:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I see the same problem has arisen with Polytechnic University of the Philippines College of Nutrition and Food Science and Polytechnic University of the Philippines College of Tourism, Hospitality and Transportation Management. In the case of Polytechnic University of the Philippines, Manila the AfD result also was merge although an IP actually did a redirect[2] this time announcing it as such. Can you explain what has been happening please? Thincat (talk) 11:48, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Please ignore my questions above. I have given up on PUP (never having been within 5,000 miles of it). The editor who you rightly had words with a bit ago and who raised the DRV[3], took the section I had created of merged in college material, tagged it for splitting into multiple articles[4], edited it in a perfectly resonable way, and today has just removed the whole lot[5] saying "Constituent colleges: Removed section because of lack of citation, advertising (enrollment period is ongoing), and grammatical issues.)"! Thincat (talk) 18:46, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Pre and post nominals

Pursuant to the foregoing policies, it is but right that all Philippine-related university articles abide by it. If no initiative is undertaken by any administrator or editor to enforce that, I will proceed as indicated. Otherwise it will be the height of inconsistency if only one or a few articles are singled out as opposed to the rest. Aclarado (talk) 09:29, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

If you see other Philippine-related university articles whose infoboxes have pre- or post-nominals, then by all means fix it yourself. Don't disrupt other articles just because you think a policy is being unfairly applied to an article you have been editing. Wikipedia policies are normally applied across all articles, with the exception of country-specific ones. I don't see how "Philippine-related university articles" is an exception to Wikipedia:SCH/AG#Infobox. For instance, do you see "Drew Gilpin Faust, A.B., M.A., Ph.D." in Harvard University? Xeltran (talk) 09:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out. I don't question the policy, I question its application. In view of the foregoing, I shall proceed accordingly. And you don't have to worry about disruptions, I have been a responsible editor since day one. If it's policy, it's policy. Aclarado (talk) 09:43, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Articles of the Colleges of PUP

Hi! I would like to ask why did nominated the articles of the Colleges of PUP. It is very suspicious that you nominated all articles of colleges (except Law) for deletion without any reason. If your reason is because of vandalism, then you could remove the vandal "in a click" as said by your profile. If your reason is because of lack of information, how could explain the deletion and protection of the article of PUP College of Education? You deleted PUPCOED's article which was very informative but the PUP College of Law's, which less informative and informal, is not deleted. The University Administration wants to know why are doing this to the articles.

Why did protected the PUPCOED article? Are you even one of the students, alumni, faculty, adminstrators of PUP. We think you have no right to protect it. One of our student editors is editing the PUPCOED article. He noticed your unpleasted edits in the article. He thinks that you're not doing someting worse but it happened. You have nominated it for deletion and deleted it. You protected even it's not reasonable. We demand you to take over the articles to us.

You are very suspicious. As we can see your edit history, I can see that you did the same to other articles of Philippine universities and colleges. We like to know what's your problems with SUCs.

Please e-mail us at rdcneyes@yahoo.com

Thanks,

Communications Management Office Polytechnic University of the Philippines 202.57.37.120 (talk) 07:16, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

The reasons for the AfD are expressly found at the former article's nomination page, particularly on the subject's individual notability to have a separate article (see guidelines regarding sub-articles for college and university topics in Wikipedia). The other articles were, more or less, nominated for similar reasons. I believe the article on PUP's College of Law has inherent notability thus I did not nominate it. Of course, this does not prejudice me or anyone else to nominate it for deletion/merge for whatever valid reason in the future.
Wikipedia's protection policy is implemented by the administrators. I merely requested it because of continuous recreation of the article by multiple editors despite the AfD decision to merge it with the parent PUP article.
As per WP:OWN: Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone (emphasis added). This means you cannot demand to anyone that only a particular group of people can edit a certain article. There are no expressed real-life prerequisites for anyone to edit any article in Wikipedia.
On a friendly note, please do not take deletion/merge of some articles seriously. The other articles you mentioned went through the proper discussion process and the subsequent decisions were based on community consensus. Have a good day. Xeltran (talk) 17:43, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

PUP College of Education

I would like to present some reasons why the article of the PUP College of Education must be unprotected and undeleted:

  • CoEd is oldest college of the university. It's birth dates back to the birth of Manila Business School which offered courses in typing, bookkeeping, stenography, and telegraphy. The course later became a two-year junior college curriculum, the Associate in Commercial Science (ACS). ACS is again renamed Bachelor in Office Administration. In 1952, PCC organized its Teacher Training/Business Education department, which offered four-year college curriculum named Bachelor of Science in Business Education. The PUP Laboratory High School was then established in 1954 to serve as the training grounds of Business Education students. The Teacher Training/Business Education department was then merged with the Secretarial Studies deparment which formed the Faculty of Secretarial and Business Education in 1978. FSBE was converted into a college in 1983 and was again renamed College of Office Administration and Business Teacher Education (COABTE) in 1986. In 2009, COABTE was again renamed College of Education. Master of Arts with major in Teaching (which later become Master in Educational Management) was offered since 1969.
  • Depts. of Office Administration and Business Teacher Education, which formed FSBE, received from Philippine Educational System a plaque of distinction for "bold and successful pioneering in vocational and business education." In 1955, the Business Writers Association of the Philippines conferred on PCC the title of "Business College of the Year" for its dynamic leadership in business education and office administration (formerly called secretarial).
  • College of Education is one of Commission on Higher Education's centers of excellence.
  • CoEd is the biggest college of PUP.
  • CoEd is the leading institution which proposed the Licensure Examination for Teachers have a major in Business Technology. It was presided by Dean Avelina C. Bucao.
  • CoEd is one leading teacher education institutions in the country.

May you undelete and unprotect the article of CoEd. Your prompt action will be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.57.37.120 (talk) 02:22, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Diosdado Macapagal

I hope you can help fix this section as I just now review it and found two "unrealiable sources" (more likely a self publish source). Thanks. — иz нίpнόp ʜᴇʟᴘ! 13:02, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Tagalog help needed

Hello Xeltran, I'm contacting you because we need some Tagalog translators to help with the deployment of the new VisualEditor on tl.wikipedia. There are help pages, user guides, and description pages that need translating, as well as the interface itself. The translating work is going on over on MediaWiki: Translation Central. I also need help with a personal message for the Tagalog Wikipedians. If you are able to help in any way, either reply here, or head over to TranslationCentral. Thanks for your time, PEarley (WMF) (talk) 19:01, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

November 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Typhoon Haiyan may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • <!-- Do not update Philippine totals until situation reports from the NDRRMC are released --> >10,000 reported
  • 11/11/proclamation-no-682-s-2013/ | title=Proclamation No. 682, s. 2013 | work=[[Official Gazette (Philippines]] | date=November 11, 2013 | accessdate=November 12, 2013}}</ref> Additionally,

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:47, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Xeltran/Archive_2&oldid=1142091714"