User talk:Loloige

User or "Administrator" TheCoffee is rather abusive and high-handed, if may say? Why does s/he keep reverting the article on Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to a version that's virtually free of a non-propaganda view, and untruthful, even--without due regard of the soundness of the new version?

True vandalism is when a Wikipedia article becomes a propaganda piece. Biographies are no exception--of course the language must be civil but to remove the "other" view is to make Wikipedia nothing but quicksilver propaganda tool of those in power.

(1) In the first section s/he misleadingly redirects "peaceful street demonstrations" to EDSA II? How misleading can you get?

(2) Again, in 1st section, s/he insists on a FALSE sequence of events. Arroyo was sworn in BEFORE Estrada left Malacanang, or "forced from office", not after. This chronology is found in Wikipedia's Revolution of EDSA II page, for goodness' sake. TheCoffee's revert version: Estrada was soon forced from office by peaceful street demonstrations, and Arroyo was subsequently sworn into the presidency on January 20, 2001.

(3) First section again, this "Administrator" user TheCoffee deleted the part where I presented critics' view (International Herald Tribune article) of EDSA II while I retained the advocates' view. (Compare: Loloige's Estrada was soon forced from office by what its advocates would ascribe to peaceful street demonstrations of the EDSA Revolution of 2001, but which critics credit to a conspiracy among political and business elites, military top brass and Catholic Church bishop Jaime Cardinal Sin.

with TheCoffee's: Estrada was soon forced from office by peaceful street demonstrations, and Arroyo was subsequently sworn into the presidency on January 20, 2001.

(4) In EDSA II and EDSA III article, s/he removed the part that contextualizes Arroyo's ascent to the presidency, describing in objective terms its controversies, and as intertwined with the Estrada issue.

The following is the said deletion. Is the following untruthful or unobjective? Arroyo's ascent to the Philippine presidency in 2001 is mired in controversy as much as the ouster of her predecessor with which it is intertwined.

(5) Under the same section, TheCoffee also deleted the part where I specified the international views questioning the soundness of EDSA II and Arroyo's ascent to the presidency. Are the view of Singapore's ex-PM Lee Kuan Yew, the New York Times and the International Herald Tribune not reputable and fair enough?

Mind that the New York Times was used as a source to describe [[EDSA III]]. Why can't the same noted periodical be used to describe EDSA II?

(6) Lastly, as of this writing, at least, TheCoffee deleted the entry on Pulse Asia's Additional Findings on Corruption-Related Issues. All my editing entries, including this one, are well referenced. Why include the SWS but not the Pulse Asia survey? Because the results show Arroyo as the "Most Corrupt President in Philippine History"? Truth talks, and it can't be part of Arroyo's biography? Pulse Asia is a reputable firm, the head Mr. Miranda being a founding fellow of SWS? Why the bias, then?

Perhaps, some of my points are debatable, but my claims of falsity and outright bias in editing are not. "Editors" such as TheCoffee sure makes Wikipedia's standards lower. S/he should be blocked, at the very least, on grounds of falsity (See Nos. 1 & especially, 2).

Loloige (talk) 10:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello,, 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 messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! .
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Also, to discuss changes to the Arroyo article, it's best to bring them up at Talk:Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (or you could contact me at User_talk:TheCoffee). I'll address your points when I find the time. TheCoffee (talk) 08:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk
Thanks for the welcoming words, TheCoffee. Thank you as well for understanding my points, which are essentially about objectifying the article by presenting both the opposing viewpoints (especially since the debate, and reverting and anti-reverting have ridiculously dragged on for so long).

Falsities in Subic rape case Wiki page
I'm wondering what the rules of Wikipedia are with regards edits that are FALSE. In the concededly "hot" page that is the Subic rape case, user "talk" has placed a number of false postings. Sure s/he puts in references, but what s/he actually writes are different from the cited news articles. I'm not going to speculate and say that "talk" has an agenda, but s/he sure is biased in favor of Smith/the US--biased enough to twist the news s/he lifts from to turn them into UNTRUTHFUL edits.

I'm just going to cite an example, although s/he has done quite a number, particularly in the light of his seeming devotion to the article. Here is talk's version, as of 21:28, 22 March 2009: According to Judge Pozon... including the fact that Suzette helped Smith to put the condom on him and that the sex between them happened in a moving van. A Blood Alcohol Content Test or BAC was not conducted during the investigation and trial in 2005 and 2006. [56] (emphasis supplied).

What is actually in the news report cited is this:

Lance Corporal Daniel Smith, one of the suspects in the alleged rape of a 22-year-old woman in Olongapo City by four visiting U.S. Marines last year, has claimed in court that Nicole (not her real name) had agreed to have sex with him, even helping him put on a condom.

How can a CLAIM be a FACT???

The twist was apparently done to portray Smith as innocent, despite a court decision to the contrary. What's most troubling, this is definitely not an isolated incident as the article reeks of such falsehood twists. I mean, I can understand bias, but persisting false statements should never be tolerated.

Loloige (talk) 12:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia quote above was in the Trial section as of yesterday, which I deleted. I just found out some minutes ago that it's also in the Recantation section! Accordingly, I deleted said paragraph that contained not only falsities but, as well, seemingly original research or unsupported posting, at the least. I refer to the sentence on BAC not having been conducted during the trial. It's nowhere in any reference cited in that paragraph (Note that this part keeps being restored).

Loloige (talk) 13:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo
I removed the conspiracy theory from the lead section, as the Wikipedia policy page on Lead section advices to write clinically and let the facts speak for themselves. Since the lead section is supposed to be a concise summary, I think it would be a good compromise to simply say that "Estrada was soon forced from office by the 2001 EDSA Revolution", without labeling it as either "peaceful street demonstrations" or a conspiracy. I have removed the "peaceful street demonstrations" wording.

As for the "Public perception" section, I feel it would be an injustice to neutrality if the section remained in the form you changed it to. Two-thirds of the section were overwhelmed with results from the one survey that was singled out to emphasize, which is only one of the hundreds of surveys conducted about Arroyo throughout her 8-year presidency. Plus it was commissioned by the campaign manager of the Genuine Opposition, and it's clearly flawed as it says "Most Corrupt President in History" while only having 5 presidents as options. It's just as possible to go cherry picking for survey results that favor Arroyo. The most neutral solution, in my view, is to report on the results of the SWS surveys that have been conducted regularly and consistently throughout the presidency. If you can add Pulse Asia's equivalent series of survey results that would be good too. TheCoffee (talk) 22:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Dear TheCofee,

It is also a fact that is it a power grab. International news reports of the then obtaining EDSA 2 say so. When you say a revolution overthrowing someone in power, one thinks of the masses of people actually seizing the seat of power. Nothing like that happened. Estrada did not even categorically "resign" but, rather, left Malacanang (following the "let the facts speak for themselves" line you demand). There was really conspiracy or negotiations because Estrada resigned only after a number of department chiefs went to the other side. Davide sworn in Arroyo before Estrada left Malacanang, at EDSA, far from the presidential palace, with the then opposition members, Cardinal Sin and defecting military/police chiefs present. That is so, so clearly a conspiracy of sorts.

To retain the introduction section as you recently edited is NOT to "let facts speak for themselves," but, rather, to present the viewpoint of Arroyo or those took part in EDSA 2.

I'll get back to you later re the Public Perception section, which I won't touch for the moment.

Loloige (talk) 04:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC) Loloige (talk) 21:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

ANDRES BONIFACIO
The page on Philippine revolutionary period, Andres Bonifacio, should be WATCHED regularly. In particular, the section on him as National Hero should be monitored to ensure that non-factual, even outright lies are not inserted.

I have forgotten to watch that page and when I returned earlier today, I noticed that the section on Bonifacio as national hero contained the following unsupported and UNTRUTHFUL sentence:

"Neither Bonifacio nor Aguinaldo is considered the national hero, as the term is popularly understood."

Bonifacio, according to the National Commission on Culture and the Arts (NCCA), is one of the two implied national heroes of the Philippines (along with Jose Rizal). Here is the relevant section from the NCCA website on the "*Selection and Proclamation of National Heroes and Laws Honoring Filipino Historical Figures", which, in turn, is based from the Reference and Research Bureau Legislative Research Service, House of [Philippine] Congress:

"Executive Summary" No law, executive order or proclamation has been enacted or issued officially proclaiming any Filipino historical figure as a national hero. However, because of their significant roles in the process of nation building and contributions to history, there were laws enacted and proclamations issued honoring these heroes. Even Jose Rizal, considered as the greatest among the Filipino heroes, was not explicitly proclaimed as a national hero. The position he now holds in Philippine history is a tribute to the continued veneration or acclamation of the people in recognition of his contribution to the significant social transformations that took place in our country. Aside from Rizal, the only other hero given an implied recognition as a national hero is Andres Bonifacio whose day of birth on November 30 has been made a national holiday. Despite the lack of any official declaration explicitly proclaiming them as national heroes, they remain admired and revered for their roles in Philippine history. Heroes, according to historians, should not be legislated. Their appreciation should be better left to academics. Acclamation for heroes, they felt, would be recognition enough. ''

While other entries/edits can be matters of opinions and sources, Andres Bonifacio having been according an "implied recognition as national hero" is an officially stated FACT based on Congress/NCCAItalic text documents. Claiming otherwise would constitute untruth. Wikipedia should be cleared of such!

Loloige (talk) 21:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

August 2010
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Macario Sakay. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. See this diff/ Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Dear Wtmichell, I am sorry but your accusation that I have just made "unconstructive" edits bordering on what what "appear to constitute vandalism" to the Macario Sakay page is ridiculous and wild. Please read below on my defense of my edit.

Thank you.

Loloige (talk) 22:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Factual editing of Macario Sakay is "Vandalism"?

 * "Macario Sakay y de León was a Filipino general in the Philippine Revolution against Spain and in the Philippine-American War.


 * "He continued resistance against the United States following the official American declaration of the war's end in 1902 and in the following year became president of the Tagalog Republic,[1] which did not recognize the authority of the First Philippine Republic.[2]


 * "He was conned by the Americans into coming down from the mountains on promise of amnesty for him and his officials, on top of the formation of Philippine Assembly comprised of Filipinos to serve as the 'gate of freedom. His surrender was made to be a prerequisite for a state of peace that would supposedly ensure the election of Filipino delegates to the Philippine Assembly. Sakay believed that the struggle has shifted to constitutional means, with the Assembly as means to winning Philippine Independence. While the latter was realized, the vile Americans only used it as a bait. He was accused of "bandolerismo under the Brigandage Act of Nov. 12, 1902, which interpreted all acts of armed resistance to American rule as banditry." The colonial Supreme Court of the Philippines upheld the decision. [3] On September 13, 1907, the leader of the Republic of Katagalugan, the de facto fourth President of the Philippines, was hanged by the imperialist United States Army."

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macario_Sakay

The above editing was pulled down, apparently by Mr./Ms. Wtmitchell, supposedly because it comprises "vandalism." I find that accusation or criticism most ridiculous. Is this vandalism? Does this article vandalize Macario Sakay? Certainly, this does not because it even puts Sakay in a more truthful, better light.

"Vandalism," according to the page Wikipedia:Vandalism, refers to "any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia....Common types of vandalism are the addition of obscenities or crude humor, page blanking, and the insertion of nonsense into articles. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not vandalism. For example additing a controversial personal opinion to an article is not vandalism...."

This editing certainly is NOT nonsense, NOT crude humor, NOT page blanking, NOT obscene. It is as well NOT made in bad faith and is in fact a good-faith attempt to correct or add to a wanting article. It is based on history, referenced from an online book that shows textually and pictorially--including from official images of the United States government. It states the facts--Sakay was made to surrender by the US government by promises of which the amnesty for him and his compatriots were not kept, leading to his execution.

My golly. I even used material from the Wikipedia page "List of Unofficial Presidents of the Philippines" when I added that Sakay is the de facto fourth President of the Philippines

Why is this considered vandalism? Because of the use of the word imperialism? Why should it be construed as such? Even US presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan condemned the invasion or occupation of the Philippine islands. So where is the vandalism?

Unless, of course, vandalism is construed to be anything perceived by partisans to be 'anti-American government.' Please remember that Wikipedia intends to be a reference material with integrity. Pulling down founded edits simply because they put the United States government in a bad light is what truly constitutes "vandalism."

Loloige (talk) 22:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

February 2011
Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Macario Sakay. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. ''Your addition in this edit has been partially reverted here. Specifically, the reference to "vile Americans" was considered to be an inappropriate expression of editorial POV. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill'') 02:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Joseph Estrada page vandalism and censorship via 'hacking'
The page on Joseph Estrada is crazy. Or a few of its editors are anti-Estrada crazy.

1. There's this Vandalism via cuss words. Details of editor and the vandalism itself here:

Revision as of 05:32, 27 February 2012 (edit) (undo) 112.200.95.171 (talk) Next edit →

"Line 44

XXX

"Siya ay isang tarantado at ulul na presidente ng Pilipinas. Putang ina isa siyang imba  ...."

4. Then another user removed the vandalism. User details here:

Revision as of 05:32, 27 February 2012 (edit) (undo) 112.200.95.171 (talk) Next edit →

5. Problem is, the box on that introduction part became INVISIBLE to the ordinary readers. How did that happen?

Gee.

Loloige (talk) 01:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

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) 13:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)