User talk:JL 09/August 2009



Replaceable fair use Image:Former president corazon aquino.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Former president corazon aquino.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the media description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Arroyo
I did the excellency because that's what's generally been done with prefixes and suffixes. It's a known fact the Arroyo went to school with Bill Clinton, who attended the SFS. The Americans are the largest propagators of ordering their presidents, next to New Zealander and Australian Prime Ministers; however the vast majority of people are not ordered. Therequiembellishere (talk) 23:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * So: Where is the MOS then? I can't find any rules abiding that. Yeah, I know she attended Georgetown, but for the sake, references to the statement said nothing to do with her going to the Walsh school. That is what I am pointing out.--JL 09 Talk to me!  23:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * She was a classmate of Clinton's. She didn't just attend Georgetown at the same time, they had classes together. Clinton was at SFS. And if they is no MOS rule, then by virtue of the majority of infoboxes excluding the orders, it is the standard. I was part of a very long, very arduous discussion of this about the Australians and Canadians, I nearly went into one over the New Zealanders but saw it was hopeless and stopped and had minor talks with the Americans where I quickly stopped for the same reason. Why should the Philippines start now? Therequiembellishere (talk) 23:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Georgetown is currently on vacation and their phone lines are empty. If I manage to get through, hos can I prove that they've said "yes"? Therequiembellishere (talk) 23:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, actually there is no problem with Clinton and Arroyo. What I am saying is that there is no Wikipedia rules concerned with the fact you are instituting. If there is, or any discussion/fora, saying that this must be in lower font, where are they?--JL 09 Talk to me!  23:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There was no discussion on the lower font, that's just a convention that I've seen throughout and use because I've seen it. In general, titles like "The Hon" and "The Rt Hon" are what I've seen, and they have almost always had their font shrunk. Therequiembellishere (talk) 23:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If there is no discussion, then it mus returned back to the same font. If that is the standard, maybe we should request editors of to do the same so that there will be no  Her Excellency  to the template, which, of course is very redundant. Agree? If there is no rule or discussion, then there is no reason to do it smaller. I think that was New Zealand people tried to say, but you can't understand it.--JL 09 Talk to me!  23:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That sounds fair. Would that affect all the templates that currently use the small tag with their prefixes and suffixes? Michaëlle Jean comes to mind. I don't understand what your last sentence means, though. Therequiembellishere (talk) 23:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, really fair, because that's what you want to happen. And it will really affect all articles that uses that template. One thing: if that is the standard, why did editors of the template do not make prefixes small?--JL 09 Talk to me!  00:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * So one second, you're going to say yes, then you're going to be (frankly) an asshole. And that template has evolved a lot since it was made, with many redundant and unused items like "viceprimeminister" still there. And for the love of God, if you oppose it, oppose it, don't be a jerk and pretend to have my view because your damn sarcasm doesn't translate over text. Therequiembellishere (talk) 00:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Templates for deletion nomination of Template:Chronology of 2009 swine flu cases in the Philippines
Template:Chronology of 2009 swine flu cases in the Philippines has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Magioladitis (talk) 21:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Rajah Lakan Dula
Hi! I added a warning on the Rajah Lakan Dula talk page. I also left warnings on most (if not all) of the users who participated in the off-topic discussions. Since I couldn't determine if the early posts were from regular editors or from one-time visitors, I've decided to put the cut-off date at July 2009...that is, those who signed their edits from July 2009 onwards received the warnings. Thanks. (PS. It's been a while since I've edited Wikipedia regularly, I'm still checking if it's OK to remove the off-topic edits.) --- Tito Pao (talk) 00:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello
It's me. Testing your page. ;)--110.55.34.5 (talk) 15:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks i didnt think it would be but somebody in the discussion was winning that is was biast to sony but the comment has since be removed thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gfrewq12 (talk • contribs) 10:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Sta. Maria, Bulacan
Can I speak Tagalog?

Ibinalik ko ang Dining Places na section pero iyon lang, ok lang saakin alisin ung iba. Pero bakit puro Sta. Maria Bulacan ang me mga tags? parang nagmumukang pangit tgnan ang article pag may tags, at mas maraming mga LISTINGs ang mga articles ng San Mateo, Rizal at Cabuyao, Laguna. Thanks. --Secaundis • (myTalk) • (myContribs) 04:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, you cannot speak Tagalog. This is English Wikipedia, so English must be the language here. The list of dining places, is still a list, and per Wikipedia policy, lists, especially those like that (Dining places) did not contribute significantly on the article. Because of such lists on Sta. Maria, it tends the article as a collection of unverified claims (especially that no refs are given). General cleaning-up the whole article will make it be shortened, especially that challenged statements that are unverified will be removed: If I shall continue cleaning up the article, there are many unverified info can be removed: for example, Vision and Mission of a town/city/province is not an encyclopedic material, there is no way to prove that the town is the The Egg Basket of the Philippines, 91% is RC, its geography and many more. I can use  tags on each unverified claims, but sorting them would be best.


 * Per this policy, it conforms to like a statistical lists of information, list of dining places is a statistic. San Mateo, Rizal, on the other hand, looks better than Sta. Maria in terms that it follows WP:NOT rules (of course, there are exceptions), and there are no excessive listings. I shall continue to watch the page/s, if you'll continue to do it, I'll report for banning you.--JL 09 Talk to me!  08:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok. Yung Roman Catholics 91% talaga, nasa Official Website ng Sta. Maria nakalagay yon, at halos lahat ng information sa article ay galing doon, kahit yung Egg Basket nakasulat din dun pero hindi ko na nilagay yung reference dhil puro dun lang galing. at hindi naman ako mag-iimbento ng mga population or other info about sta.maria. You can clean up the article bsta sa ikagaganda nito. --Secaundis • (myTalk) • (myContribs) 08:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Read Wikipedia rules, okay?--JL 09 Talk to me!  08:59, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok I remove already the Vision-Mission and i add the source about the 91percent roman catholics. Can i have a favor? Pwede paki-linis at paki-ayos ang article? Kahit may ma-remove dito ayos lng? Sorry bad english. --Secaundis • (myTalk) • (myContribs) 09:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Why do you delete our discussions here? History--JL 09 Talk to me!  09:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

SMB2
I delete because my mobile phone can't support up to 5,500 characters.Im only using mobile phone in contributing here. If you want to delete the whole page, its ok. :) --Secaundis • (myTalk) • (myContribs) 09:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments
I sent you an e-mail because I was unable to access Wikipedia, but ignore that. Here's what I wrote:

1. Re: "Inconsistencies to Philippine History articles (again)."

The Milagros Guerrero reference you want is the 1998 book "Reform and Revolution". There are 3 referenced works by her on the Bonifacio page and none of the tags go straight to the correct work. My fault, I didn't get the code right when I added them. This should be fixed.

The Liga didn't end with Rizal's arrest, I think this is also mentioned in Teodoro Agoncillo's History of the Filipino People and Renato Constantino's A Past Revisited. While it is true the Liga split into the KKK and the Cuerpo de Compromisarios, problem is we tend to simplify things and assume this happened immediately. The Liga was continued in Rizal's absence by Bonifacio, Mabini and others. Check the Mabini reference in the Bonifacio article, it's there in his writings (previous page from the one used in the article).

2. Comments on the Katipunan article

- "The Sanggunian as well as the Katipunan society was headed by an elected president called Pangulo, only until 1895 when Bonifacio changed the title name."

Well, Agoncillo writes:


 * 1892 - D. Arellano - President or Supremo
 * 1893 - R. Basa - President or Supremo
 * 1895 - A. Bonifacio - Supremo
 * December 1895 - A. Bonifacio - President or Supremo
 * 1986 - A Bonifacio - Supremo

And I see you used this.

Guerrero and Soledad Borromeo-Buehler (see List of Presidents of the Philippines) write that Bonifacio used both "President" and "Supremo" in 1896. Santiago Alvarez writes Bonifacio was "Presidente Supremo" - in English "Supreme President", in Tagalog "Kataastaasang Pangulo". Bonifacio himself used "Kataastaasang Pangulo" in his letters - see Jim Richardson's site. I'm not sure if it was Alvarez who explained that "Supreme President" was used because there were many presidents of provincial and popular councils but only one supreme president. I definitely read that somewhere.

In short, maybe it's not worth it to distinguish between President and Supremo, or to say that Bonifacio distinguished between them.

- The Filipino scholar Maximo Kalaw reports that Basa yielded the presidency to Bonifacio, who was then called Supremo, in 1894 because of a dispute over the usefulness of the initiation rites and Bonifacio's handling of the society's funds. Moreover, Basa refused to induct his son into the organization.

I've seen this before. But this needs sources. The most often given reason is Basa (and Arellano before him) was ineffectual. Soledad Borromeo-Buehler writes that when some complained about Bonifacio's handling of funds, Bonifacio revealed that he had been loaning it to needy people, complete with written records (promissory notes).

- "Supreme and Venerable Society of the Children of the Nation" vs Zaide's "Highest and Most Respected Association of the Sons of the Country."

The first English translation is by John Schumacher, who co-wrote Reform and Revolution with Guerrero. I think the relevant tag in the Bonifacio article should be expanded to include him as co-author but I'm not sure how.

- Re: Pio Valenzuela, Rizal, Bonifacio

Refer to the section "Views on revolution" in the Jose Rizal article. The problem with Valenzuela is that he kept changing his stance on various issues like Rizal's actual views and the Cry of Somewhere (hehe). This is mentioned in Guerrero's article about the Cry. John Schumacher says that he would treat Valenzuela's statements with caution. Valenzuela may have lied to the Spanish about Rizal's views in order not to implicate him. His earliest testimony is what you and Zaide have used: that Rizal was against revolution outright. Later in the American period Valenzuela said Rizal had only been against revolution if it was premature and it was feasible only as a last resort - he even recommended getting support from rich people. I think you've combined the accounts.

- communist republic

Is that what Isabelo de los Reyes really wrote? Right now, linked as a whole phrase it goes to communist state. Perhaps link the separate words communist and republic.

- Ang Kalayaan

Sure the title has Ang in it? :-P

- Ano ang kalagayan nitong Katagalugan nang unang panahun? (In what condition did the Spaniards find the Filipino people when they came?)

Note that Bonifacio, Jacinto, etc. used Katagalugan to mean the Filipino nation/people and not just the Tagalog "nation"/people. See Tagalog Republic.

- "José Turiano Santiago ... claimed that Bonifacio himself ordered Patiño to divulge the society's existence to hasten the Philippine revolution and preempt any objection from members."

Sure it's cited, but it sounds like rumor-mongering. Why hasn't this appeared in more historical works? Perhaps historians do reject this as rumor-mongering by someone with a grudge?

- Start of the revolution

Okay, this is is where things get really muddled. :-P Suggestions:

a. Don't write as if August 23 or 26 is _the_ date of the Cry. The same goes for Balintawak and Pugad Lawin. Try to note the controversy. Guerrero's article and Borromeo-Buelher's book are about this very topic. See my handling at Andres Bonifacio and Philippine Revolution.

b. Try to mention Zeus Salazar's findings that the Battle of Pinaglaban was just part of a "battle of Manila". This is mentioned in Reform and Revolution and in the Andres Bonifacio and Philippine Revolution articles.

- Schism and disestablishment

"Thus ended the existence of the Katipunan, replaced by Aguinaldo's revolutionary government."

This occurs right after the mention of Bonifacio's execution. But Zaide, in his "The Philippine Revolution" writes the Katipunan ended with the Tejeros Convention. BUT Guerrero writes the Katipunan was only formally abolished on July 15, 1898 by a decree of Aguinaldo. Paraphrasing: "The Katipunan is no longer needed, for the Philippines is now the true Katipunan." According to Guerrero, what ended with Tejeros (at least from the point of view of Aguinaldo, etc.) was the Katipunan-as-revolutionary government headed by Bonifacio. For more details, see Tagalog Republic. Try to work in the description of the Katipunan as a "shadow goverment" and then a "de facto" revolutionary government. More historians write about this than one might expect - Agoncillo, Constantino, Guerrero, Zaide... See Tagalog Republic.

Besides, even after Aguinaldo was well-established as President, some people independently continued the Katipunan in their areas, especially during the pact of Biak-na-Bato while Aguinaldo was in Hong Kong. Aguinaldo even acknowledged the continuing Katipunan movement even though the reason for being of his government was to replace it (as a government). Maybe the most extreme example is Macario Sakay whose Republika ng Katagalugan was obviously Katipunan-inspired and Bonifacio-inspired.

- Use of Zaide

I mostly rely on Agoncillo, Constantino and Guerrero based on their relative contemporariness, the last two especially for their more incisive analysis and tendencies to expose stuff that others haven't. Zaide is fine too I guess but one must consider his relative age. (Besides I don't have his books, only accessed them at libraries.) I typically use Agoncillo for basics and Constantino and Guerrero for finer points. Guerrero's Reform and Revolution has the advantage of being the most recently published and therefore the most up-to-date, I reckon.
 * Edit: Scratch that, I would only use Zaide where he is not contradicted by later authors, and to back up other authors.

My free time is going to be curtailed for a few days, so it would be appreciated if you took heed and maybe started more work on this. I can't promise I can edit the history articles much until Friday. Would that day was here and I might ride down upon them like a storm out of the mountains! It grieves me to fly before them. --- Uthanc (talk) 10:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks Uthanc. I hope I can clean this article up. I only have Zaide's books here in our house, plus I cited some excerpts from Rizal's life that are with connection to the KKK. Tomorrow I'll go to UP Main Library and look for some books that will give clear things... Maybe I can omit some details that are very contradicting and point that they are contradicting... Or leave a note instead. Right now, I will only add some details that came from independent books in Google Books. Thanks again.--JL 09 <sup style="color:#0B7C08;">Talk to me!  11:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I wasn't sure of the inclusion of Ang to the official organ, but many books tend to use Kalayaan, and Ang Kalayaan. Internet pages used both, too.--<font style="font-family: Verdana">JL 09 <sup style="color:#0B7C08;">Talk to me!  11:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Cirilo Vazquez
I edited the intro paragraph to make clear that Vazquez held political power in his area in Veracruz, even though he never had an official government title.

Now it asserts notability, and it also has reliable sources cited. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry 'bout that
You left me a message that i reverted talk:take a chill pill (something like that). Well ,I was using Huggle, and I accidently reverted the talk instead of the removal of speedy done by Mrinvisibleman. Sorry about that. Manish <i style="color:green;">Earth</i>Talk • Stalk 09:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * So, entirely coincidental, eh? It's okay.-- JL 09  <sub style="color:#7d7d7d;cursor:help;">q? <sub style="color:#177245;cursor:help;">c|undefined 09:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

chill pill
Sorry if that rvt I did removed the speedy delete tag. Was going to blank the page and then tag it. The edits were taking place quickly and may have addedto the problem. I assure you I am not trying to abuse the tool. Hope this helps. Thanks &spades; B.s.n.   &hearts;  R.N.   09:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Coincidental? it's okay.-- JL 09  <sub style="color:#7d7d7d;cursor:help;">q? <sub style="color:#177245;cursor:help;">c|undefined 09:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Rostekhnadzor
Hello JL 09, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Rostekhnadzor - a page you tagged - because: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. — Jake   Wartenberg  17:24, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay. i am very sorry for the mistake.-- JL 09  <sub style="color:#7d7d7d;cursor:help;">q? <sub style="color:#177245;cursor:help;">c|undefined 04:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

August 2009
I noticed the message you recently left on. Please remember: do not bite the newcomers. If you see someone make a common mistake, try to politely point out what they did wrong and how to correct it. ''The article appears to have been created in good faith by a new editor. It may be a candidate for deletion, but it is not vandalism.'' I42 (talk) 10:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I am sorry. I'll try to keep that next time.-- JL 09  <sub style="color:#7d7d7d;cursor:help;">q? <sub style="color:#177245;cursor:help;">c|undefined 10:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I also see you tagged Speckle noise as nonsense. The definition of nonsense is that it is incoherent. The sentence made sense, so it was not nonsense. Plus, another editor legitimately removed the tag and you warned them about it! I42 (talk) 10:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I made a reply for the talk page.-- JL 09  <sub style="color:#7d7d7d;cursor:help;">q? <sub style="color:#177245;cursor:help;">c|undefined 10:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

August 2009
Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself. Please use the template on the page instead if you disagree with the deletion, and make your case on the page's. -- JL 09  <sub style="color:#7d7d7d;cursor:help;">q? <sub style="color:#177245;cursor:help;">c|undefined 10:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Um... say what? I didn't create the page, and I'm an administrator and am entitled to remove speedy deletion notices. I'm minded to remove your rollback right for misuse, but would like to avoid the appearance of impropriety. Stifle (talk) 10:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry. I overlooked the history page. An honest mistake. Very sorry.-- JL 09  <sub style="color:#7d7d7d;cursor:help;">q? <sub style="color:#177245;cursor:help;">c|undefined 10:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, just please be a little more careful in the future. It's very easy to go off on autopilot when you're using scripts. Stifle (talk) 10:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Stifle. God bless.-- JL 09  <sub style="color:#7d7d7d;cursor:help;">q? <sub style="color:#177245;cursor:help;">c|undefined 12:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I have removed your Rollback rights
Your last 3 uses of the tool were not revering vandalism Rolling back an new user removing speedy tags is bity, rolling back an admin declining speedy is, well, stupid and rolling back a maintenance tag and thereby losing content added by the user is just plain disrespectful to the other user's contributions. ,,. Spartaz Humbug! 12:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That's okay to me. I hope someday I regain that right.-- JL 09  <sub style="color:#7d7d7d;cursor:help;">q? <sub style="color:#177245;cursor:help;">c|undefined 12:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to get a note on my talk page in a couple of months and if there have been no problems with your automated edits in the meantime I almost certainly restore your rollback. Spartaz Humbug! 12:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, Spartaz. No problem for me. Thanks for the notification.-- JL 09  <sub style="color:#7d7d7d;cursor:help;">q? <sub style="color:#177245;cursor:help;">c|undefined 12:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)