User talk:Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr.

Welcome!

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

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

AfD nomination of Kingdom of Sugbo

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

An article you created is about to be deleted: Tools which can help you

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

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kingdom_of_Sugbo.

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

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

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

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

Philippines

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

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

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

Civility and suitability

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

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

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

Philippines

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

Hi

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

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

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

Resolving dispute to Philippines

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

Causes of the disputes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Confederation of Madya-as

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

Huge copy-pasting

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

WP:PR

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

Talkback

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

JL 09 ^_q?_{_c} 14:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

File permission problem with File:File:LagunaCopperplateInscriptionPicture.gif

File Copyright problem

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

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

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

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

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

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

File copyright problem with File:Paoay Church Philippines Sideview.jpg

File Copyright problem

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

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

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

File permission problem with File:File:SurigaoGarudaDaggerHandle.jpg

File Copyright problem

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

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

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

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

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

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

AfD nomination of Lazaro Macapagal

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

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

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

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

ANI notice

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

File permission problem with File:File:Medal from the Order of Lakandula.jpg

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consensus and Closing the Consensus

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

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

Considering the course of our discussions I am now in the understanding that a new concensus has been achieved. I will now revert the edition to Labanog's most recent version of it. Thank You.

Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 03:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? No consensus was achieved. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 03:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Elockid. You know fully well that concensus has been achieved because of the lack of repartee from the opposing party. "The man with the last word on the matter is deemed right."

Hence, I implore you to just use your subtle-sense and agree to the logic of our passionate quests for the expanded edition of the section. You have witnessed our ~~delibetations~~ deliberations in the matter and I trust that deep inside your heart you know we are right. But if you insist more on the formalities of things rather than the substance of it. I fervently wish you could trascend that... But, thanks for arbitrating anyway.

Truly Yours Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 5:41 am, Today (UTC−8)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Request for Arbitration

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} 14:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Last Warning

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

Edits on Cebu

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

December 2010

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

File copyright problem with File:UglyFilipina.jpg

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

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

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

Proposed deletion of Butuan Silver Paleograph

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

Nothing I can find in Google, lexis/nexis.

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

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

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

Hello!

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

Disambiguation link notification for March 9

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

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

Disambiguation link notification for August 18

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

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

Edit warring in Manila

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

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

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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

October 2013

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

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

Disambiguation link notification for December 17

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

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

Big Four international beauty pageants

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

Disambiguation link notification for January 29

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

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

Disambiguation link notification for February 8

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

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

A barnstar for you!

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

Disambiguation link notification for July 31

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

Confederation of Madja-as

added a link pointing to Ati

Philippines

added a link pointing to Ati

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

Request for comment

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

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

Disambiguation link notification for October 19

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

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

Contribution in article "Confederation of Madja-as"

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

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

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

Reference errors on 27 August

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

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

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

Disambiguation link notification for October 11

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

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

ArbCom elections are now open!

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

Beauty pageants

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

Aztecs and Filipinos

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

Disambiguation link notification for July 19

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

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

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

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

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

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

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

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

huang vs. wang

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

Women in Red World Contest

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

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

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

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

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

Disambiguation link notification for August 18

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

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

November 2018

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

This also applies to the following articles:

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

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

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

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

Disambiguation link notification for December 13

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

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

Mactan Hindu Ganesha Statue moved to draftspace

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

Your submission at Articles for creation: Mactan Hindu Ganesha Statue has been accepted

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

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

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

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

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

American and Japanese Period

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

Ways to improve Battle of Manila (1405)

Hello, Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr.,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Disambiguation link notification for April 24

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

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

105 Filipinos

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

About your contributions that do not follow the WP:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research guidelines

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed deletion of Battle of Manila (1365)

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed deletion of Battle of Manila (1405)

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed deletion of Battle of Manila (1500)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brunei folk history identifies Bulkeiah as Nakhoda Ragam, the reputed conqueror of the Philippines, and tradition even names the cannon with which he was said to have taken Manila - Si Gantar Alam, "Earthshaking Thunderer". When the Spaniards arrived in 1570, the port of Manila had three recognized rulers- Ache, the old rajah (Ladyang Matanda), and his nephew Soliman, the young rajah, and, in Tondo north of the Pasig River, Banaw Lakandula, Ache's cousin.
— W.H. Scott, "Barangay: Sixteenth-Century Philippine Culture and Society" (pp. 191-192)

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

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

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

Nomination of Battle of Manila (1365) for deletion

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

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

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

August 2019

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

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

Yet another copyright violation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ANI discussion

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

RE: If I am from San Sebastian College Recoletos

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

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

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

See WP:HOUND - your edits are a problem.

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

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

@Doug Weller:, WP:AN is sufficient to review his actions. Eyes are on this and you don't need to perpetually hound him on the matter. If you have issues, please bring it to WP:AN via diffs and concise summaries. Do not hound him. Buffs (talk) 16:35, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no hounding here. Watch it, Buffs. Drmies (talk) 03:25, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Buffs: There is certainly no hounding. I understand that you are in a foul mood after an unpleasant and unfair experience at the hands of a legacy admin. But going around attacking random admins, such as myself here and Doug Weller above, isn't the way to go. Please consider that we're all volunteers, and that there are real people behind the usernames. Bishonen | talk 04:55, 22 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]
  When someone is going around following a person's every edit (regardless as to whether they are an admin or not), it's hounding and inflaming the situation. There are real people behind the user names of those that admins are interacting with too. Obviously RBSJ feels hounded. WP:AN will handle the matter. It was meant as gentle encouragement to let it be handled there. We're all watching it and I've even put in a vote to have RBSJ be sanctioned.
  
  For the record, it hasn't been 1 admin that was over the line, it's been at least 4, two of whom sanctioned me a total of 3 times for spurious reasons and refused to even discuss their actions with a "mere peon" such as myself. Buffs (talk) 14:59, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Blocked

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

Nomination of Kedatuan of Dapitan for deletion

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

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

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

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

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

Request reason:

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

Decline reason:

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

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

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

Second Request for Unblocking

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

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

Request reason:

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

Decline reason:

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

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

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

2019 US Banknote Contest

US Banknote Contest

November-December 2019

There are an estimated 30,000 different varieties of United States banknotes, yet only a fraction of these are represented on Wikimedia Commons in the form of 2D scans. Additionally, Colonial America, the Confederate States, the Republic of Texas, multiple states and territories, communities, and private companies have issued banknotes that are in the public domain today but are absent from Commons.

In the months of November and December, WikiProject Numismatics will be running a cross-wiki upload-a-thon, the 2019 US Banknote Contest. The goal of the contest is to increase the number of US banknote images available to content creators on all Wikimedia projects. Participants will claim points for uploading and importing 2D scans of US banknotes, and at the end of the contest all will receive awards. Whether you want to claim the Gold Wiki or you just want to have fun, all are invited to participate.

If you do not want to receive invitations to future US Banknote Contests, follow the instructions here

Sent by ZLEA at 23:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk)[reply]

3rd Request for Unblock

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

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

Request reason:

I was blocked due to posting original research, for being combatant and for citing sources inappropriately, more information here: (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=911938204#Editor_who_still_hasn't_learned_about_copyright,_NPOV,_original_research_and_reliable_sources) this is due to some recent articles I created, however, that does not represent most of my works since I have been contributing to Wikipedia for almost 10 years before that, with very few mistakes and hitches, however, I admit I got carried away by listening to my more radical friends and that I am guilty of feeling far too strongly for them because I feel their opinions which even though are minority views are good because they are educated professors and academia (Members of Kasaysayan Hunters) however, I now realize that Wikipedia is a collegial encyclopedia determined by consensus and thus controversial new discoveries yet to be verified only invite fighting, thus I have found other medias to publish controversial, original research such as in here: https://www.amazians.com/restoring-respect-dignity-to-philippine-pre-colonial-warrior-history (I even get paid to post my research there while in here I'm criticized and just work for free). Thus, since I have found other multimedia to publish my work and even get paid for it, I will simply contribute to Wikipedia as joyfolly and harmoniously as possible from now on and return to my previous 10 year persona of consensus building contributions. I am deeply sorry for my Original Research, Controversial Edits and Misunderstanding my use of sources. This is my 3rd request for unblocking, which was then denied by administrators 331dot and Deepfriedokra because the agreed 2 months period of repentance (Related to my Block) had not yet elapsed since talking to them starting August 30. However it is now, October 31 and the 2 months period is over and thus I am requesting another Unblock. Again I am truly sorry for my mistakes and I earnestly do not want to repeat them. Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 04:55, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I have read the very extensive discussion which led to the block, and everything that you have written on this page. Your unblock requests, including this one, do not begin to show an understanding of the depth of the problems involved. On the contrary, they provide yet more evidence that you don't understand. Like several other people who have commented, I have every sympathy for how you must feel, as you have edited in good faith and then find yourself blocked from editing for reasons you don't understand, but the fact remains that you clearly don't understand. Moreover, since that is still true despite numerous attempts to explain the problems to you, it seems unlikely that you are going to understand. JBW (talk) Formerly JamesBWatson 10:21, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Your email

I have received your email, containing links to two web pages which as far as I can see have no connection whatever to anything relevant to me or to Wikipedia. I don't know what your purpose was in sending me that email, but normally Wikipedia email should be used only if the following two criteria both apply: (1) the email contains information relating to Wikipedia, and (2) there is a good reason why the same message can't be posted on Wikipedia; most commonly that is because the email contains information which must be kept confidential. I strongly advise you not to send emails except in that situation, as otherwise your email access is likely to be removed. JBW (talk) Formerly JamesBWatson 13:09, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. As you know I can't edit other people's talk pages since I'm blocked, email is the only recourse I have. I will reflect more and intensify my repentance and I will apply for another unblocking at a later date perhaps. God Bless.

Also can you kindly explain to me what I can't understand? :) I know I am not perfect but my grades in Logic and Ethics and Psychology are among at the top of my class...

What exactly about my own person, about logic and "understanding" do I not grasp?

Here's my Collegiate records.

https://i.imgur.com/N1iKMzf.jpg

But of course, you are smarter than me, due to your office, your opinion is ALWAYS to be deffered. :D

But I sincerely appreciate your sympathies though. :3

Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 13:24, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

4rth Request for Unblock

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

I am requesting for an unblock (For the fourth time) for the same reasons I stated before, that the scenario wherein there is a tendency for me to publish original research, Non Neutral Point of View and etc. is no longer there on the basis that I am now employed under a publishing company, and thus I am no longer inclined to push my point of view here and I am no longer interested in doing so, considering that arguing about something in this community is just stressful and unprofitable to me and others when now and I can publish my articles (For Payment and without drama elsewhere). In relation to that, I intend to contribute from this point onwards in a liesurely non-confrontational and community driven manner as I also want to contribute through a more rules-adehering way. Also, since my 3 previous Unblock requests were unsuccesful with my queries on the latest Unblock request, having received the cold shoulder despite me showing evidence of my academic and pyschological competency via posting my grades (Which was the issue at center in the Admin Noticeboard of my block, my alleged "Incompetence" since even though I was considered a good faith editor, they didn't consider me "Competent"). Furthermore, I would just like to make use of the "Standard Offer" clause, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Standard_offer), wherein I didn't participate in any Wikipedia editing for 6 months now. Also, I would like to invite an administrator who may come in my defense @Wtmitchell: since I am the top contributor in the Philippines article where he is active in. That is all, have a blessed day Mr. or Ms. reviewer. Addendum: As per a further extarpolation requested by @Deepfriedokra:, the issues for my previous block was that I simply copy-pasted references from other articles without first counter-checking if the said reference is particularly useful to the transferred article and also there is the fact that Wikipedia is not a place to publish original content but rather is a quick summary of collected sources in which case, my original research here as well as my previous copy-pasting from other articles were violating WP:reliable sources, likewise my propensity to listen to "opinions" from my friends edging me to edit articles under a different light also violates, WP:neutral point of view which says topics must be treated under a neutral and objective light and finally, as per wp:copyright Wikipedia editors cannot use copyrighted works unless there is permission from the author, publisher or if it falls under fair use, in which case, in my unwitting search for documents, I forgot to ask permission from a publisher in one source I cited here: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rene_Bascos_Sarabia_Jr.#Yet_another_copyright_violation). This is thus my own understanding of the Wikipedia Policies I unconsciously violated and I firmly resolve not to make the same mistakes again. Yours truly! Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 21:21, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

per conditions set forth -- Deep fried okra 12:13, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

unblock discussion

I'm sorry, but your academic and pyschological competency are not at issue nor are they relevant. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anybody can edit. What is relevant and at issue is your ability to contribute constructively. I think you understand not to try to publish your own work here, Please describe, in your own words, your understanding of WP:reliable sources, WP:neutral point of view, and wp:copyright as it apples to your editing, especially as it relates to content you cannot see, and the opinions of Facebook and personal friends .-- Deep fried okra 03:22, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

permalink to archive-- Deep fried okra 03:22, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Deepfriedokra: for your constructive critique. I will now edit my unblock proposal respectively.Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 04:56, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bishonen: What do you think?-- Deep fried okra 05:41, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still dubious, Deepfriedokra. The ANI thread in August was a real horror show, and there's nothing very concrete in his reply to you above. But with article creation only via WP:AFC, 0RR, and so on — what you said — I'm OK with an unblock. Please lay it out clearly for him, Deep. And Rene, if DeepFriedOchra gives you any conditions you don't understand, please don't make any guesses — ask, either him or me. If you don't abide by the conditions, you will be re-blocked. (To be clear, the conditions have not been specified yet.) Bishonen | talk 19:08, 29 January 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Are you still thinking about it, Deepfriedokra? Bishonen | talk 20:45, 31 January 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Sorry for the delay. I've been dealing with a rat infestation.

I will unblock with these conditions--

Any article creation via AfC.
Absolutely no copy pastes.
0RR-- if you are reverted, you must not revert in turn and you must immediately discuss the matter in a civil manner.
Zero tolerance on incivility. Please do not accuse other editors of stalking you, of not acting in in good faith| in reverting you or disagreeing with you,
Zero tolerance on making edits not supported by the source.
No image uploads-- none.
No stilted language/non NPOV e.g. "that arose to fight for justice against the genocidal Mongols" or "Added damming evidence against Mayweather.".
When replying in a discussion, please be careful to indent properly.

I may not be around much (tired from chasing rats). Bishonen you or any other admin can certainly unblock if user agrees to these terms and I'm not around. Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. please ping me or Bish if you require clarification. As always, any other admin may amend these conditions or unblock as they see fit.-- Deep fried okra 23:16, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck with the rats, Deep. I've been thinking perhaps we should make the conditions time-limited? It may be cruel and unusual to forevermore require Rene to create articles only via WP:AFC, or abide by 0RR. Rene, if you agree to these conditions and follow them faithfully for three months, you may then apply to have them lifted. You can do that right here on your own page. But please don't simply wait and do nothing for three months — that won't get the conditions lifted. You must edit in the normal way for three months, with these conditions, to show that you can manage them. OK? Do you understand everything we've said? Please ask if you don't, and reply below. As soon as you agree to the conditions in a convincing way, you will be unblocked. Bishonen | talk 12:02, 1 February 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Six months of active editing. We need to actually see the improvements to end the conditions.-- Deep fried okra 12:12, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, agreed. Bishonen | talk 12:13, 1 February 2020 (UTC).[reply]

I also agree - we need to see clear improvements relating to all of the above. Simply editing casually wouldn't be enough. Doug Weller talk 12:44, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not being able to reply since I have business to attend to in an out of town trip. Firstly I am deeply sorry for my bad behavior before and that I admit that although my first few years in Wikipedia were productive with only some mistakes, I let that small seed of harshness and self-righteousness germinate and grow to a full on evil tree of smug negativity, the only thing that prevented me from becoming a full troll was my short religious formation (Which I cut off) saying I should check myself and forgive others too. In which case, in retrospect, I think this disciplinary action against me has made me reprioritize myself and made me a better individual, thank you for making me realize my mistakes and I will fully cooperate with you and seek out consensus. But I have some questions, I have some old media which needs correcting like I published the Seal Imprint of Butuan based off the Butuan Ivory Seal Picture available in Wiki (Only that I flipped the colored parts) but I accidentally put the script upside down, likewise I also made a graphics for the Piloncitos character of "Ma" for Ma-i which Filipino historians say is the Seal for the State of Ma-i but its' yet unpublished can I at least update some legitimate artworks or photos that had accidents in it in Wikimedia before I stop uploading pictures for six months? Also, can I make a voice recording of the Philippines article? (I will just narrate the article since I remember that it had a voice narration before, but due to the edits since the first narration, the current article version no longer has the narration, I want to update it too and its' not a picture but it stil is under the aegis of Wikimedia.) Also, I have been studying French and Spanish, can I also edit Wikipedia in other languages? I intend to spruse up the article by translating English references in time for the 500th anniverary of the First Circumnavigation of the World and the Christianization of the Philippines since there is a huge information assymetry between English Wikipedia and Spanish plus Filipino and French Wikipedia. I have more questions but these are it so far. Thank You. I hope you guys take care of your rat problem! --Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 14:17, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Based on this [2] I'd say, still WP:NOTHERE. –Austronesier (talk) 08:57, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly specify which part there is WP:NOTHERE? Didn't I say that I don't want to violate Wikipedia policies anymore? --Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 15:14, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You state that this source says that "Dapitan was an independent state according to Chinese archives". Disregarding for the moment the question of whether this source fulfills the criteria of a WP:reliable source or not (no reference is given for the Ming annals!), the source simply says that the place name 呐嗶嘽 can be equated with Dapitan, and that Chinese traders enganged in trade with people of that place. But no mention of Dapitan as "an independent state", except for the lengthy quote from Wikipedia about the spurios "Kedatuan of Dapitan". It's not sufficient to be "less creative", but there should be zero creativity except for how to paraphrase the content of a source without altering its content. Anything else beyond that ranges between WP:OR and WP:HOAX. –Austronesier (talk) 16:06, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let me clariffy, if you read further you can find the direct source in the article, "Ming Annals (vol. 333)" just type the Chinese characters on that and there, you will find your unadulterated original source, please kindly stop hounding me with accusations dear sir, I'm already in hot water. Stop adding salt to my wounds. Have a happy day.

ADDENDUM: Added context clarification, that volume of the Ming Annals showed Tributary States and their locations plus their respective commercial products and tributes. In Ming policy a tributary state is defacto independent (Different from a vassal state though). It is obviouosly implied in the text, do you need a verbatim statement that such and such is independent for it to be considered as such? --Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 17:01, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Sorry for the wrong grammar or wacky coding. Im using my Phone right now. And Wikipedia does not code well on my phone. Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 13:49, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Guys it has been six months since my block, I think a review of my performance thus far, is up. ---Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 13:33, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK it's almost been two years since the Unblock Conditions have been set forth for me and that I am proud to say that there are no more succesful complaints from others, or that their complaints were adressed or refuted against me and that I fulfilled the conditions of my Unblock request, 2 years of being clean from violations, I think I merit full participation into Wikipedia again and that since I fulfilled all my conditions without successful complaints or the complaints refuted, I humbly request to have all my Wikipedia rights restored. Thanks!--Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 07:43, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. So, beyond expectations that apply to all users, I'd say we can lift the restrictions. Well done. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:51, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not altogether happy, Deepfriedokra, as Rene still keeps falling foul of our copyright rules. Look at this at the bottom of this page, from May this year. I don't agree that Rene "refuted" it, not at all. And how about this well-grounded copyvio warning, as recently as August 2021, which you removed after half an hour with the comment "problem solved removed section"? So how did you solve the problem? I don't see anything like that in your contributions. Do you actually mean "Diannaa solved the problem by removing the copyvio?" I wouldn't be happy with that. Other people removing your copyvios does solve the problem for that particular instance, but not the problem that you do make copyvios and others still have to make sure these violations don't remain on Wikipedia - and pretty recently, too. Do you have any comment, Rene? "2 years of being clean from violations" might be an exaggeration. Copyright matters on Wikipedia, and I'm not impressed by the excuses you make for each particular instance I've mentioned. And I'm not altogether impressed by your statement on User talk:Deepfriedokra that "to be specific I had zero complaints from the months of May to now this year". Yes, you did. You removed the August copyvio complaint so it doesn't show on your page, that's all.

Not that a 0RR restriction, for instance, would stop you making copyvios. I honestly don't know what to do about them. Void the old restrictions and instead place escalating blocks each time there's a copyvio?

Anyway. Some of the unblock conditions you set forth here, Deepfried, are things everybody needs to do all the time, such as no copy pastes, no making edits unsupported by the source, etc. The specific unblock conditions, AFAICS, are creating articles only via AfC, no image uplaods, and 0RR. So these are the three restrictions you want lifted, René? That would mean all your rights restored, since copypasting, being incivil, etc aren't rights; nobody's allowed to do them. Could you please tell me, below, as an example, what you have been doing in the article creation department in the last two years? Have you created some articles via WP:AfC, and if so, could you link to them, please? Or have you simply stopped creating articles? (That would be a pity, as it would not, of course, demonstrate that you've gotten better at it.) Bishonen | tålk 14:49, 9 November 2021 (UTC).[reply]

To clarify now that I'm more awake. (less unawake?) Not violating our policies on use of copyrighted material is an expectation for all users. I would expect zero tolerance for that problem. Going forward, any copyrighted content adding edits will result in an indefinite block. If article creation again becomes a problem, then that probably should result in an indefinite block. Any further incivility should result in an indefinite block. Any failure to meet any other expectations held for all users could result in an indefinite block. It's been about two years. There comes a time when you must let go (a little?), when you must extend some trust that the user understands what the problems were, but with the expectation that there will be no further problems. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:35, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, much as I would prefer to support Deepfriedokra's optimistic line, I find myself compelled to share Bishonen's concerns. As well as the problems she has pointed out, even a very brief and incomplete check of recent edits threw up a further examples which suggest to me that problems are still very much with us. JBW (talk) 16:41, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I have been thinking for a while and I feel ashamed of myself for struggling and I feel as if I betrayed DeepFriedOkra's Trust. Maybe I should take a break from editing for a while, in order to assuage your concerns why not I myself volunteer for another block starting January 2022 to June? Maybe I need a break from editing for me to stay true? --Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 15:07, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not editing doesn't assuage concerns, editing while showing an understanding of issues assuages concerns. I have not checked for what the issues might be, but if it's copyvio, learn what copyvio is, and at a minimum never copy anything. As general advice, I would also suggest completely avoiding academia.edu. Stick to high-quality journal articles and the like. CMD (talk) 15:20, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok since blocking me again even if I volunteer doesn't help and I admit that I am struggling with Copyvio, what about we settle on something else? How about a guided editing scheme? Or another probation, I have struggled with Copyrights but in all other aspects I'm already good, as I have improved incrementally, I haven't reverted anything and have been civil and have not uploaded any new Wikimedia content. How about another extended probation but with the caveat that my edits have to be guided or supervised until I perfect the method and won't commit anymore copyviolations? --Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 05:03, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is unclear exactly what you are looking for here. Your restrictions have been optimistically lifted, so it's up to you to make sure your edits meet general guidelines. Every editor is permanently on probation with regards to copyvios, there's no point where that restriction gets removed for anyone. CMD (talk) 07:31, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that there have been some minor issues with WP-internal copypaste edits, and a single copyvio based on a misunderstanding (don't do this again, when in doubt, ask us!), I can overall say that Rene (post-block, and this is what matters if second chances are for real) is definitely here to build an encyclopaedia. We had a number of discussions based on differences of opinions, but all held in a very collegial spirit. Considering that I have occasionally to encounter grossly problematic editors and report them ANI when necessary (sometimes with little response), I don't see why a net-positve contributor still needs to be under permanent suspicion. But this also goes to you, Rene: most of the restrictions were actual basic policies that apply to everyone. Not being aware of them is something you cannot bring up anymore in your favor, but btw, so can't I: I have twinkled out hundreds of warnings about everything, so feigning ignorance is a card I am not able to play ;) I do my best to adhere to our policy by being constantly aware, so just do so too. And the only way to live up to this is to actually edit. Please stay. –Austronesier (talk) 14:55, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 11

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Katipunan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Criollo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 16:17, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ok I'll specifiy the type of Criollo, thank you. --Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 16:25, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Battle of Manila (1500) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Battle of Manila (1500) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Manila (1500) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. _SUPER ^ASTIG 08:50, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I basedmy decision to restore it upon reading William Henry Scott's Prehispanic Source Materials for Philippine History wherein Cheiftain Kamayin as well as others were specifically mentioned in the book. I intended to track downthe page where I found it but I was not able to due to the local library closing down because of the Covid 19 Pandemic. I will leave it for nowbut I will return it with the specific sources and the pages inside the source mentioned once our library which is currently closed, opens again. Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 13:09, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I read about those very those very leaders in William Henry Scott's Book: "Prehispanic Source Materials for the Study of Philippine History". I copied them verbatim from the book then but I forgot to put attribution. I restored the infobox thinking I could get the book again once I borrow the said book from our library again. Unfortunately the Pandemic closed our library. I assure you. The names mentioned in infobox area sourced from Academic sources. Its just that the Pandemic dissalowed from re retreivinf the book and placing the page numbers of the names where I got it from, unless you guys are just satistfied with just mentioning the authors and book? Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 13:20, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Was this intended as a reply to our discussion below? –Austronesier (talk) 13:36, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

History on the Philippines

Hi Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr.! Don't worry, I come in peace! There are many of your recent edits I have nothing to "complain" about, and if otherwise in a few cases, I have tried to explain why. I just want to comment on a small piece of edit that might be improved a bit[3]. I know you aware that WP:primary sources are always to be used with extra care, so I have two questions: 1. Is there a secondary RS which also makes use of these contemporary witnessed accounts? If yes, you may add them to enhance verifiabilty. If not: 2. Can you please expand your citation of the CSIC-archive material for easier verification, and add links, if accessible online? That would be great.

And another minor thing meant as a collegial advice and hint, not criticism: if you copy material from other pages (as in this case from "Luzon"), please specify that you did so for better attribution of authorship (ok, in this case it's uncritical since you were the one who added the material in "Luzon" ni the first place). You should also check in WP:MYTEXT if there is a copyvio issue if you make verbatim re-use of material from your personal blogs. In the long term, I hope you are here to stay with our common mission: writing the best articles based on the best sources, all the more if it's about the topics we have a passion for. –Austronesier (talk) 13:58, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ok, I just copied the primary source from a PDF translating Mexican documents to English. I will come back and edit that and place the English PDF instead of the original Spanish language document cited in the archives of Mexico, sorry. Also, thank you for sharing things that will improve my editing here and I hope we will develop our beloved community. Again, thank you very much. -Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 14:08, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok here's the PDF "https://www.academia.edu/36911506/Eva_Maria_Mehl_Forced_migration_in_the_Spanish_pacific_world_From_Mexico_to_the_Philippines_1765-1811" The information is in Page 100. -Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 14:14, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

About the Caboloan article

I already explained it in the talk page of the article itself, but since you have not offered a valid justification for restoring a table with dubious and potentially unresearched claims, I have decided to eliminate it again. Please refrain from doing something like that again unless you back up your decision with valid reliable sources. In fact, I don't mind if it gets restored again, but please back it up with actual reliable sources. Start with JSTOR and Google Scholar (as I have probably told you numerous times). Stricnina (talk) 11:05, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bishonen, Deepfriedokra, and Austronesier: comments? It's almost worse that he's used a source for Udayan which only refers to him as "an outstanding warrior of Darew.". CIR? Doug Weller talk 11:34, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: Dubious pseudo-history based on sexed-up half-sentences in RS, or no sources at all, is something I have hoped not to see again. CIR is the most benevolent interpretation of it, because the outcome is instinguishable from a fabricated hoax. –Austronesier (talk) 12:34, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I basedmy decision to restore it upon reading William Henry Scott's Prehispanic Source Materials for Philippine History wherein Cheiftain Kamayin as well as others were specifically mentioned in the book. I intended to track downthe page where I found it but I was not able to due to the local library closing down because of the Covid 19 Pandemic. I will leave it for nowbut I will return it with the specific sources and the pages inside the source mentioned once our library which is currently closed, opens again. Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 13:09, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I read about those very those very leaders in William Henry Scott's Book: "Prehispanic Source Materials for the Study of Philippine History". I copied them verbatim from the book then but I forgot to put attribution. I restored the infobox thinking I could get the book again once I borrow the said book from our library again. Unfortunately the Pandemic closed our library. I assure you. The names mentioned in infobox area sourced from Academic sources. Its just that the Pandemic dissalowed from re retreivinf the book and placing the page numbers of the names where I got it from, unless you guys are just satistfied with just mentioning the authors and book? Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 13:20, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rene: No, the last suggestion is not a good idea. Please don't re-add anything until circumstances will allow you to hold a copy Scott's book in your hand to cross-check every detail, including page numbers, which in turn will enable us to verify the content. –Austronesier (talk) 14:56, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I won't restore the content until I get the book again and this time put full attribution, until then the infobox can remain erased. Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 15:20, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, remember your message to me regarding the word "kedatuan"? Have you found a valid reason to keep using that word several months later? Because you keep using the word "kedatuan" in your recent edits. Also, "Hindu" rajahnates of Cebu? I would be cautious labeling it a "Hindu" rajahnate, but if you can back it up with reliable source, then it would be better. Stricnina (talk) 14:34, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see, I just copied the info from the current Wiki article about Philippine History, I'll remove the mention of Kedatuan and replace it with polity, I forget sometimes.Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 15:20, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: That was not good, Rene. One of the conditions set by Deepfriedokra for unblocking you in February was "Zero tolerance on making edits not supported by the source".[4] Obviously we have even less tolerance for unsourced edits. I sympathise with your pandemic problems, but many of us are similarly affected. You should not excuse unsourced editing with the library being closed. Just as Austronesier says, please don't add anything until circumstances will allow you to hold a copy of the relevant book in your hand. Please take this as a warning. Bishonen | tålk 18:58, 24 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]
I ca only agree with what Bishonen has written. COVID-19 has been problematical and inconvenient in many ways. But we cannot allow unsourced edits even so. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 03:31, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sorry, I won't put the info back until I once again get that book. Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 09:01, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The library is still closed, I decided that I should just purchase the said book from artbooks.ph and get my own personal copy so that I could use that as source, just wait for a few weeks and I will update the section in Wiki accordingly. Regards! --Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 14:33, 19 June 2020 (UTC) It's available here: "https://artbooks.ph/products/prehispanic-source-materials".[reply]

Sourcing issue

Hi Rene, I have reverted this edit because of sourcing. You cited the first part to two books, but neither had page numbers and one was "A Question of Origins. Arnis: Reflections on the History and Development of Filipino Martial Arts", which seems wildly out of scope. The list following that was completely unsourced except for one entry, and the source for that one entry bascially indicates that almost nothing is known about the entry. The final sentence includes one reference which is just more information followed by reference to a source which does not appear anywhere on the page, a source from 1628, and a source from 1524. These sources are not only very old, but fall under WP:PRIMARY. Extrapolating significant information from them is WP:OR. CMD (talk) 03:29, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thank you. I just reverted into old info from a previous version I guess reverting it to a previous version isn't constructive. I simply summarized an old version of the paragraph and put in the sources found in the presummarized version into the summarized version (the presummarized, you deleted since it was too wordy, in your newer versions). I guess compressing old versions was counter-productive since I was not aware that the old sources were bad. I will find better sources that aren't old. Thank you. P.S. I don't have a PC now so I'm just typing this in a Cellphone so there might be coding errors. Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 06:02, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's best practice that when copying from somewhere else on Wikipedia, including an old version, to indicate as such in the edit summary. It can be worth getting material from previous versions, but not without checking the sources if that is necessary. The issue with the old sources in question isn't that they are necessarily bad, but that they are primary sources. They might be excellent for academic papers, but as Wikipedia is a tertiary source it has different sourcing requirements. Of course, recent secondary sources are probably better than older ones as they'll incorporate more recent research. CMD (talk) 14:48, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I finally found a more modern source that specifically mentions the names of the Polities and Sultanates in the Philippines. Here's the source...

“Polities and Sultanates in the 10th and 16th Century Philippines, Historical Atlas of the Republic, Manila: The Presidential Communications Development and Strategic Planning Office, 2016. p. 64."

Since I have a more modern source, I will restore the mentions of those Polities in the Philippines Article. --Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 14:04, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find anything about Madja-as and Namayan on the map on p.64? –Austronesier (talk) 14:56, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Santa Ana is Namayan. You can check an online page of the map here: https://archive.org/details/historical-atlas-of-the-republic/page/n65/mode/2up. It seems like Madja-as and Dapitan is not mentioned but I read from this, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kedatuan_of_Dapitan, that Dapitan has several academic sources for it,

Here:

Page 107 of the 1976 History of the Filipino People, volume 2. Zeus A. Salazar
Ramon N. Villegas' Tubod: The Heart of Bohol.
Dapitan Kingdom of Bohol by Athena Garcia on Academia.edu

Then there are also Academic sources for Madja-as too.

Here:

Abeto, Isidro Escare (1989). "Chapter X - Confederation of Madyaas". Philippine history: reassessed / Isidro Escare Abeto. Metro Manila :: Integrated Publishing House Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan Library. p. 54. OCLC 701327689. Already conceived while he was in Binanua-an, and as the titular head of all the datus left behind by Datu Puti, Datu Sumakwel thought of some kind of system as to how he could exercise his powers given him by Datu Puti over all the other datus under his authority.

Cf. Sebastian Sta. Cruz Serag, The Remnants of the Great Ilonggo Nation, Sampaloc, Manila: Rex Book Store, 1991, p. 21.

Dapitan and Madja-as may not be in that overview of Polities but they are also listed as independent Polities by other historians in other books.

--Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 15:24, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Dapitan and Madja-as may not be in that overview of Polities but they are also listed as independent Polities by other historians in other books." The sentence that comes immediately predecing the citation must match the citation. Either trim the content, or add more sources. I guessed so about Namayan, but for most readers and other editors who want to verify the content, the connection will be opaque. Maybe you should pipe Santa Ana to Namayan, and adjust the lead there to give the location in Sta Ana more prominence. –Austronesier (talk) 15:30, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thank you, I will do as you asked. Bless you. --Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 15:37, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rene, can I ask why you restored the sentence derived from the 400 year old source? Regarding the map, it says nothing about cultural waves, so I have rewritten the sentence to match the source. As Austronesier says, the sentence should match the citation. Regarding Dapitan, there's no indication that the source used counts as a reliable source. It may be best to stick to just the states mentioned in the map, as clearly the author thought that those ones had the most notability, rather than creating our own arbitrary list. CMD (talk) 16:46, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The source is actually a Secondary Source Commentary on the 400 year old primary source.

"The former sultan of Malacca decided to retake his city from the Portuguese with a fleet of ships from Lusung in 1525 AD. SOURCE: Barros, Joao de, Decada terciera de Asia de Ioano de Barros dos feitos que os Portugueses fezarao no descubrimiento dos mares e terras de Oriente [1628], Lisbon, 1777, courtesy of William Henry Scott, Barangay: Sixteenth-Century Philippine Culture and Society, Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press, 1994, page 194."

Ok I have no problem with just sticking to that one source, people will still aquiant themselves with the other polities in the Philippine History Article. --Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 16:54, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Best to directly cite the Scott source then. Reading that source, that page doesn't talk about overseas communities around various parts of Asia, but instead about a specific community in Malacca. It's nonetheless quite interesting text, especially the notes on the spread of Islam.

Regarding more specific articles, History of the Philippines (900–1565) is currently quite sparse. I note the map there seems to be missing a polity on Negros which is present in the pg64 map. Furthermore it locates Dapitan on the southern tip of Cebu, whereas the source you used places it somewhere in West Bohol. CMD (talk) 17:17, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that article needs some work too. I've mostly focusing on the main Philippine History Article. Ill transfer and paraphrase some content there too, one of these days.--Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 17:21, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'm thinking that we should further compress the subsections in the Philippines' history section, reducing it to just: Precolonial Period, Colonial Rule and Independent Era. Much like the article on Japan.--Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 13:43, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rene, I would agree with that idea. Japan is actually exactly 60 kB too, so a useful example in more ways than one. There's a few too many headers in Culture as well. The overall compression of the article has actually gone quite well, it's down to 72kB prose from 102kb. Any ideas on what else can be rewritten? I'm thinking perhaps topics that get into history outside of history, such as Cinema, can be reduced to just the current situation. CMD (talk) 02:19, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I researched and supplied references to 12 citations needed tags and I also merged and compressed the history section by removing redundant words. What else do we need to do to compress it further?--Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 17:54, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey CMD, let's compress this further, and why not submit this article for review to upgrade to "Featured" status?--Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 13:39, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rene, taking an article to FA requires a significant amount of work. The length is just one component of WP:FACR, and I suspect if we submit after doing just that the article would quickly fail. FAC requires not only a consistently professional level of writing, and that all sources used are of very high quality, but also a lot of seemingly minor but time-consuming items, such as ensuring every reference is formatted in the same manner, all the images abide by WP:MOSIMAGES and have alt-text, etc. The latest successful country FAC was Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bulgaria/archive4, which shows how much scrutiny there is. The less work reviewers have to do, the more likely the article is to be nominated, so it's best to get it in as good a shape as possible before submission. If you want to push for this, I will most definitely pitch in, but I would also suggest opening discussions on the article talkpage and on Tambayan Philippines (after the article is of the correct length and a bit more work is done) to get further input before submitting to FAC. CMD (talk) 14:28, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see, i'll propose this in Tambayan Philippines so that we could have help, I think these days are very productive days for us Wikipedians since we are under quarantine, so we better use it to improve the article. Thanks for the support, I'll pitch this in the talk page and Philippine Tambayan tomorrow, since I'm about to sleep now. Also, shouold I voice record soon or later, after the collective improvements via help from Tamabayan?--Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 14:36, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You could probably do the voice recording whenever you want, but if you put this article up for FAC, it will inevitably be edited during the nomination process. Later is likely to be more stable. CMD (talk) 14:46, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will try to make the voice recording during my free time. By the way, I asked Pinoy Tambayan for their help in editing our main article for FA status here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Tambayan_Philippines. What do you think?--Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 13:03, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think keep working away at it and others can join if they want. Rene, can you explain this edit a bit? You've taken the sentence on racial mixing, previously attributed to "ReferenceC", and put it in front of two other references. CMD (talk) 16:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I think I made a mistake, let me transfer the appropriate sentence forward. Thanks for pointing that out.--Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 17:09, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit on Luzon +> Gaddang People

Rene - I'm happy you are pleased with my edit to the Luzon article. I have worked on the Gaddang People article on and off for eight years. I hope you read it someday. Ethnic laundry (talk) 00:14, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I read you're work, I am glad that there is somebody dedicated to chronicling the people of Luzon especially the non mainstream ones!--Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 17:52, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing in the Philippines article

Replying here as requested. I haven't really been copyediting, just checking sources. If you have good sources available, why wait for me to finish? Some of it might not even need a library. The reference work needed is not just replacing cn tags, there are lots of sources that need replacing with higher quality or newer sources. For example, parts of the article still use the 2010 census, so I am planning to update them to the 2015 census (if someone else doesn't do it first). CMD (talk) 12:45, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think I may help with that, my city library just reopened recently, thank God, and thus I have access to more books now, I may be able to help you with updated information.--Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 11:51, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't associate libraries with updated material myself. I expect the best use of a Library would be for the more timeless sections of the article, such as the Government and Military structure, Geography, Climate, and various parts of the Culture section such as mythology, literature, etc. CMD (talk) 12:28, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I'll focus on those facets. I can't wait to contribute. Have a great day! :D --Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 12:33, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Manila went back to MECQ again, so which means libraries are once again closed, I was hoping it would open up, damn. ---Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 13:31, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source reliability

Rene, this is another edit based on primary sources from hundreds of years ago. (At least I think it is, because your references are in a non-standard format that is difficult to understand.) These sorts of edits are not productive, especially as we just discussed a very similar case. Please read very carefully through Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and consider very hard for each source you look at whether it is appropriate for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not an academic journal, and is not a place to develop research. If you cannot find a reliable source for some piece of information, do not add that information. When you do have a reliable source, please consider using the templates in Wikipedia:Citation templates so the formatting can be easily followed by others. CMD (talk) 17:28, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Chipmunkdavis: See Talk:Philippines#Latin American settlers. –Austronesier (talk) 18:45, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rene: I gave you some well meant advice about primary and secondary sources before[5]. –Austronesier (talk) 18:48, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oops I just copied that source from a previous version of the article, I didn't know that it wasn't a secondary source.--Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 07:48, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but then please, please check in the future that the citations in any addition that you make fulfil WP standards (something incomplete like "La Pérouse, ii, p. 368." should not escape your scrutiny). –Austronesier (talk) 08:19, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, thank you, Austronesier.--Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 08:20, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not only did your unblock include the condition of "Absolutely no copy pastes", I explicitly mentioned in an above conversation that when Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia there should be attribution, and that you should check the sources when doing so. If you don't know what the source is, do not add it to articles. CMD (talk) 08:21, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the copy pastes apply to copying books verbatim from outside wiki to wiki, but it seems like it also applies to within wiki. Sorry CMD, I got ahead of myself, I'll be more careful next time, we both have the same objective, to make our articles better. Thanks for pointing that out.--Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 08:24, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. Please note that the need for caution relating to copying and pasting, even within Wikipedia, is not targeted at you, but is a general principle for this site. CMD (talk) 09:02, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please use Wikipedia:Citation templates, as I mentioned above. CMD (talk) 15:45, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ok, i'll reformat my citation to reflect the template, thank you.--Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 16:04, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your citation was a journal article, you should use the journal citation template. CMD (talk) 17:05, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ok, I thought it was a website because I accessed it online, I'll change it to journal template tomorrow, because I'm about to sleep, it's 1 AM now. Good night bro. --Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 17:12, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The citation templates have a |quote= field. Please use this instead of putting text outside of the template. Best, CMD (talk) 14:26, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, a note on citing chapters, there are actually |chapter= and |chapter-url= fields in Template:Cite Book. That means for example, that the Forced Migration in the Spanish Pacific World book should have "Forced Migration in the Spanish Pacific World" as the title, with "Unruly Mexicans in Manila" as the chapter. Please also include the ISBN for all books where possible. CMD (talk) 14:44, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I was having a bad time formating because I was using a tablet. Ill put them in quotes when I get back to my PC . Thanks bro. Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 14:44, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the fixes. Please look again and try to include as much information as possible. ISBNs, dates, and pages (just the year of publication is fine) are crucial, and it is important to cite the title of the actual book in the |title= field, not the chapter. CMD (talk) 13:35, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Philippine history section sockpuppet content

Hi Rene, I have reverted to a mostly pre-sockpuppet state, just keeping some previous edits I had made. Your recent edits seem to just be trying to clean up the section, so I think this will make the work a lot easier, especially as I think you were being very prudent regarding your reverting restrictions. Please continue to be aware of sources, such as when you simplified Spanish East Indies but placed that new information in front of a different source to the information you were simplifying. I've tried to restore the changes you made which were on other text. Best, CMD (talk) 07:28, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You Chipmunkdavis, I really appreciate the great effort you expound in helping clean the article. You are a blessing to the Philippine Wikipedia Community.--Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 08:18, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Demographics of the Philippines sources

Hi Rene, in this edit you added new text which split the previous block of text, which may potentially have been sourced to the "fedor" source. If it was, the edit may have split text from its sources, which causes an issue with WP:INTEGRITY. Did you mean to split the text up, or potentially is the text before your new text also covered in your source? CMD (talk) 09:53, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oops sorry I made a mistake I didn't intend to split the text, I made a formatting error, I'll correct it, thank you for pointing this out.--Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 14:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You split " there was also a large but unknown number of Indian Filipinos, the rest of the population were Malays and Negritos. Thus, with merely 667,612 people, during this era, the Philippines was among the most sparsely populated lands in Asia. In contrast, Japan during that era (the 1500s) already had a population of 8 Million or Mexico had a population of 4 million, which was huge compared to the Philippine's mere 600,000. In 1600, the method of population counting was revamped by the Spanish officials, who then based the counting of the population through church records. In 1798, the population of Luzon or Luconia was estimated to be around 600,000 with the other islands, unknown. 200,000 of the 600,000 population were of mixed-raced descent of either Spanish, Chinese or Latin-American admixture. 5,000 enlisted soldiers on that year, were of South American descent, while 2,500 were pure Spanish officers. There were also 20,000 new Chinese migrants". In the current page, everything up to "through church records" is sourced to the Borschberg source. Also, the access date for that source is 2015. Where are you copy pasting this from, and why are you copy pasting it? CMD (talk) 14:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I split it because the references I inserted have a different chronology so I inserted it as per the date of population type as said in the reference. I copied some of the references from the Intramuros and Luzon articles since they have information on the number of foreign Spanish and Ternatean families that immigrated to the Philippines and since these immigrants affected the demographics of the Philippines, I decided to transfer some information here.--Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 15:28, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum, I think I should also link the source for the Ternateans settling in the Philippines, (https://www.academia.edu/12285228/Zamboangue%C3%B1o_Chavacano_Philippine_Spanish_Creole_or_Filipinized_Spanish_Creole)--Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 15:34, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What is the source for the sentence "In 1600, the method of population counting was revamped by the Spanish officials, who then based the counting of the population through church records" and the text before it? Since you split on purpose, can you confirm whether it is the Borschberg text or not?

You have been explicitly asked not to copy paste, and are ignoring the #Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution message which has already been left on your talk page. Please read the instructions for copying within Wikipedia and rectify this instance. CMD (talk) 15:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I'll remove the copy-pastes, I momentarily forgot.--Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 16:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It might be better to write new text, but if so please be careful about splitting existing text. On a different topic, do you know if this book is what is referred to in the main Philippines article as "Bonialian, 2012", and if so what page has the information about the annual silver subsidy? CMD (talk) 08:24, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late reply I was busy at work, I don't know if that's the book that's cited in the reference, however, I do know how to read Spanish, so in my free time I'll read over that reference and find that page for you. Thanks for having this clarified, regards! :D --Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 13:14, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rene, any luck with the Spanish text? Otherwise we can leave it out and use the other sources which do support the general principle, if not the specific amount. CMD (talk) 10:38, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I forgot about this, sir, life has been very busy for me ever since my mom died. I think its' best that we depend on other sources since I have yet to get the necessary time to read the Spanish texts.--Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 14:59, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem, take care. CMD (talk) 02:10, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 5

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Texas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Filipino.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:13, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 2021

One of your recent edits has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. Moxy- 22:27, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry I thought quoting from the source is ok since I saw many who quoted verbatim from Academia.edu so I quoted too. Ok then I will just paraphrase the quote. Thank You. Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 22:50, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Moxy: I copied and quoted verbatim because I thought it was ok since in the "Spanish rule during the 19th century" Section of the Philippines History article, several quotes were copied verbatim from the source, so I thought that it was ok to do that in my edits too. This, especially since my reference in Academia.edu which is a file sharing and research sharing site which I personally signed up to in which case, the terms of agreement there allow fair use sharing of content since it is afterall a research paper sharing site. I dont think its a copyright violation since the researcher deliberately made it public fair use property by having it uploaded to Academia.edu . Anyway hope this explains it! Regards! :D Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 23:56, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Moxy: if you check the Wikipedia page of Academia.edu, the source of my copied content, you would see that its open-source, file-sharing, public domain and allows fair use copying of content. I dont think Im doing a copyright violation knowing that the author of the work I cited, put her work in a public domain file sharing site. So quoting from her is ok provided I give proper citations which I did BTW. Anyway I will put your words into consideration and paraphrase her work even though it's not necessary.Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 00:11, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The works on Academia.edu are clearly under copyright, usually by the original author. See here. You are free to read and download for personal use but you cannot re-use the material without permission. There are sometimes cases where you might argue fair-use but I think copying entire pages would be problematical. Glendoremus (talk) 21:46, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I read the fine print you posted and I think I can claim fair-use because the definition includes using it for scholarly or research purposes NOT commercial purposes. Anyway we dont have to worry about this now since I removed the copied text and replaced it with just a citation to the source. Regards! Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 22:36, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 3

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bolivia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aymara.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sanmalan has been accepted

Sanmalan, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Jeromeenriquez (talk) 19:41, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution (another request)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from one or more pages to History of Brunei. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. DanCherek (talk) 22:10, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for editing by putting attribution, but the reason I haven't put attribution at first is that I was not finished editing and thus I intended to put the attribution from the articles I lifted it from, in my final edit. Nevertheless, I thank you for pre-empting me and placing the attributions before I finished editing the article. :) Now, all I need to do is continue on adding the post-colonial history of Brunei. Regards!-Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 02:05, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your understanding. That makes sense, but often it makes things easier to add the attribution in the summary of each edit in which you've copied content. That way, if your edit is flagged by a bot as a potential copyright violation, as your edit was, it's helpful for the reviewing editor to see that 1) it was copied within Wikipedia and not from another website, and 2) that attribution has already been supplied and that no extra action needs to be taken. Hope that makes sense! DanCherek (talk) 13:45, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again

When you copy within Wikipedia, please include a wikilink to the original article in your edit summary attribution, as I did here: [6] ([[Brunei]] is linked). That makes it easier to tell where the content came from. Hope that makes sense and thanks! DanCherek (talk) 05:21, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok I almost forgot to place the attribution, but thankfully I put it before you edited, Link (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarawak&action=history) however, I still thank you for reminding me! God Bless and Happy Editing! --Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 05:33, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the reason you should directly link to the article is that I saw your edit summary and thought you were copying from Sultanate of Brunei, which wasn't the case. DanCherek (talk) 12:47, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I meant the modern Brunei Sultanate not the historical one, ok noted, just mentioning the article may be insuficcient, I should provide direct links, not just mention the article. --Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 15:01, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Philippine Military Activities in the Americas has been accepted

Philippine Military Activities in the Americas, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

DGG ( talk ) 07:51, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 27

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cebu (historical state), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Burmese people.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 5

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Italy–Philippines relations, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Spanish Italy.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Non-English names

Please do not add non-English translations to articles, especially those of place names (outside of the actual article on the specific topic). CMD (talk) 12:45, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ok then. Noted, feel free to revert my foreign script insertions.-Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 13:08, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Intercolonial Intimacies Relinking Latin/o America to the Philippines, 1898–1964

Re this, do I have the right book here:

Park, P.C. (2022). Intercolonial Intimacies: Relinking Latin/o America to the Philippines, 1898-1964. Pitt Illuminations. University of Pittsburgh Press. p. 100. ISBN 978-0-8229-8873-1.

I'm not disputing the article assertion (which does need support), but I don't see support there.

I see that the book title says, "[...] 1898-1964" and the assertion says, "The book "Forzados y reclutas: los criollos novohispanos en Asia (1756-1808)" gave a higher number of later Mexican soldier-immigrants to the Philippines, pegging the number at 35,000 immigrants in the 1700s,[233][234] nearly 4% of a total Philippine population of only 900,000 while 3,000 were Japanese residents, [...]". Besides the question of support, there seems to be some disconnect and/or lack of clarity here about what timeframe this is describing. I Wtmitchell

I do see here, "In 1800, the population of the islands which make up the territory of the Philippines had a population of approximately 1.89 million.", which which amounts to a more than doubling of the population within 50 years if the 900,000 figure is for the early part of the 1750-1800 timeframe mentioned as from the Forzados y reclutas book. Maybe this apparent differences between sources needs clarification per WP:DUE. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:45, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that's the right book. I've read the book (Intercolonial Intimacies) again and the author merely states 35,000 Mexicans while does not explain where he got that statistic from, although he referred to the Forzados book. Yes, I agree with you the sources seem to conflict. I think it would be best not to make conclusions based on conflicting sources, I will edit the page, accordingly. Regards! -Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 09:06, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are more into this than I. If sources conflict, please observe WP:DUE. I have not revisited this, but I recall looking for the 900,000 and 35,000 numbers in the sources and not finding them. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:14, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let me screenshot where I got the 35,000 number to clarify. (https://i.imgur.com/74q4JFd.png) [Fromt the Relinking Latinos book] and here's the 900,000 numbers (I did some math beceause the previous number in the 1650 was even les than 900,000 as the population had been reduced to 510,000 but the 1700s number was 1.5 Million so I exterpolated the median number) Screenshot (https://i.imgur.com/GphK3sU.png) that's from the book about Filipino demographics. Regards! -Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 11:56, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That screenshot link included above didn't work for me -- it led to an all-black page. I still don't really follow all of this, but then I am not as far into the details as you and I have only seen snippets online from the sources. I have WP:BOLDly made some edits in an attempt to regularize the cites somewhat -- this included some changes in wording and some tagging; Please see these changes and make whatever further edits you think are needed. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:47, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's strange, it didn't turn black for me, how about I change the photo hosting site to Google Photos, maybe you'll see it this time. Here's the screenshot for the 35,000 Mexicans (link) and the screenshot for the population (link). Hopefully this will work this time, regards!-Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 00:25, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clicking that navigates me to a black screen image with a gray rectangle in the middle and a larger/smaller clickspot in the middle of the rectangle. I'm currently using a Dell G7 laptop running Windows 11; there's nothing oddball about the setup. I'm not doubting you about the 35,000 number and the source where you say you found it is one of the two cited at the end of the sentence containing that number. More easily verifiable sources would be nice, but aren't required. I'm WP:AGFing. Cheers, Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:33, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:39, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 30

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Confederate States of Lanao, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Zamboanga.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sicilian Baroque

Hi - I've reverted your edits on Sicilian Baroque. First, we need a source for this claim. Second, in a Featured Article, or indeed any article, we can't have text in the lead that isn't covered in the body. The lead's a summary of the article, and can't have standalone material. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 05:13, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. The sourcing for Earthquake Baroque is very weak; travel blogs and guides, with only one that looks like it would be Reliable. Are we sure it's a recognised academic term? KJP1 (talk) 05:20, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for just chiming by it's lunch time in the Philippines, yes Earthquake Baroque is an academic term, the term is profusely used in Google Scholar (https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=earthquake+baroque+philippines&oq=Earthquake+Baroque+). And your right I should put Earthquake Baroque influence in Sicilian Baroque not in the lead section but in the subsections! Thank You! :D -Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 06:08, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, thanks for sharing those links. I've scanned some but I'm still not sure I quite "get" it. Is it describing:

Baroque built in earthquake zone countries;
Baroque built as a result of earthquakes, i.e. lots of buildings fell down at x point in the 1600/1700s and were rebuilt in the prevailing Baroque style; or
A specific variation of Baroque prevalent in earthquake zone countries and adapted to the local conditions, e.g. with detached bell-towers?

Anyways, if you have a source indicating the impact on Sicily, I think it would fit well in the Earthquake and patrons section. Best regards, KJP1 (talk) 11:41, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You so much bro, I really appreciate the input. :D -Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 00:58, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I found a resource, page 62 of (Bankoff, Greg. "Design by disasters." Cultures and disasters: understanding cultural framings in disaster risk reduction. London, Routledge (2015)) wherein it stated that Sicilian Baroque is also affected by the Earthquake Baroque that arose out of Paraguay and the Philippines. Its in Google Books.(https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22Earthquake+Baroque%22+Sicily+Spanish&btnG=)-Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 07:16, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

December 2023

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Lauren Southern, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 14:16, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 12

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited History of Sarawak, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Austronesian.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 15

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tagalog people, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Spanish.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:57, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 14

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cebu (historical polity), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mandarin.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:57, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Kingdom of Sugbo

An article you created is about to be deleted: Tools which can help you

Philippines

Civility and suitability

Philippines

Hi

Resolving dispute to Philippines

Causes of the disputes

Confederation of Madya-as

Huge copy-pasting

WP:PR

Talkback

File permission problem with File:File:LagunaCopperplateInscriptionPicture.gif

File copyright problem with File:Paoay Church Philippines Sideview.jpg

File permission problem with File:File:SurigaoGarudaDaggerHandle.jpg

AfD nomination of Lazaro Macapagal

ANI notice

File permission problem with File:File:Medal from the Order of Lakandula.jpg

Consensus and Closing the Consensus

Request for Arbitration

Last Warning

Edits on Cebu

December 2010

File copyright problem with File:UglyFilipina.jpg

Proposed deletion of Butuan Silver Paleograph

Hello!

Disambiguation link notification for March 9

Disambiguation link notification for August 18

Edit warring in Manila

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

October 2013

Disambiguation link notification for December 17

Big Four international beauty pageants

Disambiguation link notification for January 29

Disambiguation link notification for February 8

A barnstar for you!

Disambiguation link notification for July 31

Request for comment

Disambiguation link notification for October 19

Contribution in article "Confederation of Madja-as"

Reference errors on 27 August

Disambiguation link notification for October 11

ArbCom elections are now open!

Beauty pageants

Aztecs and Filipinos

Disambiguation link notification for July 19

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

{{Service awards}}

huang vs. wang

Women in Red World Contest

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Disambiguation link notification for August 18

November 2018

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Disambiguation link notification for December 13

Mactan Hindu Ganesha Statue moved to draftspace

Your submission at Articles for creation: Mactan Hindu Ganesha Statue has been accepted

American and Japanese Period

Ways to improve Battle of Manila (1405)

Disambiguation link notification for April 24

105 Filipinos

About your contributions that do not follow the WP:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research guidelines

Proposed deletion of Battle of Manila (1365)

Proposed deletion of Battle of Manila (1405)

Proposed deletion of Battle of Manila (1500)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Nomination of Battle of Manila (1365) for deletion

August 2019

Yet another copyright violation

ANI discussion

RE: If I am from San Sebastian College Recoletos

See WP:HOUND - your edits are a problem.

Blocked

Nomination of Kedatuan of Dapitan for deletion

Second Request for Unblocking

2019 US Banknote Contest

3rd Request for Unblock

Your email

4rth Request for Unblock

unblock discussion