User talk:$antander

October 2008
Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Xeltran (talk) 01:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit conflict
Hi there user. Why are you removing informations in the Lapu-Lapu article when in fact it is the truth. Thanks $antander —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC).
 * Indeed, those items you were editing are referenced and the citations are provided beforehand, so modifying the existing lines may be misleading from what the material in the links actually portray. Don't you think so? &mdash; •KvЯt GviЯnЭlБ•  Speak!  08:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC) &mdash;  •KvЯt GviЯnЭlБ•  Speak!  08:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Tip on picture sizes
Please don't set the size in pixels for images that have the 'thumb' parameter. Registered users can set the size of images marked 'thumb' to their own preference in the 'my preferences' tab, selectable sizes range from 120px to 300px, please don't override their preferences. Thanks, CliffC (talk) 13:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

November 2008
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Synchronism (talk) 18:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi $antander,


 * Please use an edit summary.  It's quite helpful to explain what you've done for the next (and later) person(s) so one can avoid misunderstandings and help make editting transparent.  'Minor correction' is too vague to describe what you're doing sometimes.  If you're fixing punctuation, then write 'punctuation' or 'punct'.  If you're doing a variety of minor corrections write 'copyedit' or 'ce'.  The only type of edit that requires no summary is the undoing/reversion of vandalism, and even then Wikipedians generally leave edit summaries for the benefit of other editors often detailing whose revision they have changed.  There are tools to simplify these processes,  might I suggest WP:POPUPS (which also is very handy for exploring the encyclopedia) and perhaps the anti-vandal tool WP:TWINKLE.


 * Just trying to help. Cheers-  Synchronism (talk) 03:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary; lest it be construed as vandalism. Synchronism (talk) 04:07, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism
Please do not vandalise the History of the Philippines article again. Gubernatoria (talk) 17:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Your second set of vandalism has again been reverted. Please look at the article's talk page for the reasons. If you vandalise this section again, I will seek to have you barred from any more editing of this section. Gubernatoria (talk) 15:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Your fifth set of vandalism has been reverted again. Please see [] for the reasons. Repeated infringements of wikipedia policy results in requests for you to be barred from editing this article again. Gubernatoria (talk) 06:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. Yachtsman1 (talk) 19:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC) - Let me be more direct. At this point, you are edit warring, and it is not constructive. Please stop.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 19:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Reply: hi there. i haven't vandalized an article. i have nothing to be guilty of. please provide a "very good evidence" and explanantion about your accussations. or is this edit conflict about personal issues ?. thank you User talk:$antander 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * This is called edit warring, and represesents a violation of the 3-edit rule.  It is not contructive, it is a violation of Wikipedia policy, and you have been warned to cease edit warring in the future.  Thank you.Yachtsman1 (talk) 03:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * hi there the edits i made on the History of the Philippines is not vandalism. it is basically a conflict of the used of words on the title of the article. no problem. thank you for the explanation. User talk:$antander 05:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Otherwise known as "edit warring", which is a form of vandalism.Yachtsman1 (talk) 23:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * rest in peace. no one wants to argue. the past is past. look forward to the future. do not dwell in the past. discussion about the controversial topic is over. thank you, peace. - User talk:$antander 5:40 4 December 2008 (UTC)

January 2009
Hi. I resized the pictures so that the article (about the Philippines) can be easily read. I think pictures more then 250 px is too big. Plus, I didn't remove any information regarding the article. I just rearranged some pictures so that it won't be messy to look at. I'm sorry if I didn't provide an edit summary for my changes. Hope you understand. - User:Luisztdt 18:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Philippines - Language list
Hello. I would like to talk on the language box at the Philippines article. Why did you remove "Tagalog" from the recognized regional languages list? I would like to discuss more. Thank you 71.116.122.16 (talk) 05:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Let us discuss the issue at this page. I haven't reverted anything since you changed the page at Philippines. Thank you again 71.116.122.16 (talk) 05:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC) Plese respond (here), so we can have an understanding.

Reply: Hi there. The Filipino language is based on the Tagalog language. It is already mentioned under the name "Filipino langauge" on the official langauge section, Thank you once again. User:$antander 05:20, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Well, wouldn't it violate NPOV to not list "Tagalog" under the regional languages? The website link that is the source for the information (Gov.ph) says that there are 8, not just seven. Just because it is an official language doesn't mean it can't be a regional one too. It can be both.

Also, the one reason that "Filipino language" kept on being added by different users as the "national language" is this line from the constitution: Section 6. ''The national language of the Philippines is Filipino. As it evolves, it shall be further developed and enriched on the basis of existing Philippine and other languages.'' http://www.thecorpusjuris.com/laws/constitutions/8-philippineconstitutions/70-1987-constitution.html It's not a national language because it's spoken everywhere, but only because it's in the constitution.

It is already established that Filipino language is based mainly on Tagalog (and that not everyone speakes Filipino or Tagalog in the country). But by law (even if it's not true in real life) Filipino is different from Tagalog. It would invite many more edit wars (and more non-neutral points of view) to say that Filipino is the same as Tagalog, by not listing Tagalog as a regional language, and even more political issues come into play by simply saying that "Tagalog" is the official and national language. Political issues should be avoided. What is important is verifiability, and NPOV but the only official sources we have (Constitution, Gov.ph) say that "Filipino" is the "national language", and that 8 languages spoken by majority of Filipinos are "Tagalog, Cebuano, Ilocano, Hiligaynon or Ilonggo, Bicolano, Waray, Pampango, and Pangasinense." (Gov.ph).

There are some who genuinely believe that "Filipino" is different from "Tagalog". There are others who say they are the same. Even more others say that "Filipino" will be different from "Tagalog" in the future, but not now. These are 3 different points of view. The best thing to do to have NPOV is to just follow what the source says.

Can I suggest a compromise? Maybe not list any of the "recognized regional languages" instead? Thank you for your understanding (I have not edited the article again, as I am waiting for your response) 71.116.122.16 (talk) 06:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

ON LEAGUE TABLES AND ACADEMIC RANKINGS AS PART OF THE ARTILCE PHILIPPINES
WHY DO YOU KEEP ON REVERTING THE EDITED SECTION OF THE ARTICLE Philippines THAT INCLUDES THAT PORTION UNDER "Education"?

LEAGUE TABLES AND ACADEMIC RANKINGS ARE ALREADY A VITAL PART OF THE ARTICLE "Education in the Philippines." AVOID REDUNDANCY, AND PLEASE be reminded that the section of Education under the article Philippines should present the OVERVIEW OF THE Philippine Education system.

Sockpuppet investigation
Mayalld (talk) 08:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

What? I have done nothing wrong. I have improve the Philippine article by removing POV and improve the used of words on sentences. Thank you-- User:$antander 22:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Richard
Stop removing perfectly good content. Bad formatting is not an excuse for deletion. And the fuller version of Andres Bonifacio is better since it reflects current scholarship. Sources are given. It is certainly not POV to speak of certain controversies, to record others' words, adding nothing to them. Or are you just a double-dealing Caviteno, or a lazy student who regurgitates outdated textbook orthodoxy? Sources back me up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.127.223.74 (talk) 15:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Reply: I improved the article by removing weasel words and corrected the spelling on sentences. User:$antander 22:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

1 week block
I have blocked you for one week for abusing multiple accounts in edit disputes. Future abuse of multiple accounts will be met with an indefinite block. ——  nix eagle email me 17:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Blocked as a sock puppet
You have been. (blocked by MuZemike 04:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC))

You may contest this block by adding the text below, but please read our guide to appealing blocks first.