User talk:Phthalocyan

Welcome!
Hello, Phthalocyan, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Requiem II (talk) 04:26, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

December 2016
Hi Phthalocyan. I'm no longer adding the 'extra' description on Primitivo Mijares accusing him running away with NPC funds. Regarding the diaries, if are able to prove that these are fraudulent, then I'm happy to have them removed. But the fact that the opposition political party was scuttled after infighting and after a political commitment was 'broken' shouldn't be swept under the rug. All the diaries have been attributed to the authors and I never claimed them as facts. Thanks. Thetruth16 (talk) 13:58, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Phthalocyan. If you want to remove the last part in the summary of Ferdinand Marcos article, then remove the previous paragraph which discusses Imelda's corruption. You are making edits without building consensus WP:CON and now you are accusing me of editing war? The edits here have long been allowed by other editors.Thetruth16(talk) 15:55, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Phthalocyan I posted my feedback on your talk page and you are not replying. Now you are accusing me of an editing war and that I'm not open to consensus among editors? Go to the talk page of the article of Ferdinand Marcos and try to build consensus of your edits. I've been there and done that. Thetruth16 (talk) 16:01, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't go well with the flow. It ended with a 2016 entry then you have October 2015. Please don't expect a quick reply. You're too furious. Phthalocyan (talk) 16:02, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Phthalocyan And you are too quick to accuse me of having an editing war, especially after you posted the editing war template on my talk page. Yes, the last part that you deleted has been presented to other editors months ago in the talk page. So please, before removing it you need to discuss first with other editors. To address your concerns that it doesn't go well with the flow, I've combined it with the previous paragraph which discusses Imelda's corruption cases. And please, discuss first contentious edits before you remove it. Thetruth16 (talk) 16:07, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

It's obvious in the edit history that you are engaging in an edit war with several editors. It's a still a warning though. You should've talk to me before reverting it the second time around to clarify. It's not on the talk page that you should put details like this in the summary. Again for simplification and for the sake of pacifying you, I'm transferring this to the ill-gotten wealth section. Phthalocyan (talk) 16:11, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

By accusing me of an editing war, you are making assumptions that I don't want to build consensus? You are the one who's deleting contributions which have long been discussed in the talk page. Again, before you make edits, please discuss first. If you move it to the ill-gotten wealth / corruption section, then the paragraph preceding it has to be moved as well. Thetruth16 (talk) 16:19, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Not necessarily. You already have the clause "Despite still facing numerous ongoing criminal graft charges and as a result of winning the cases filed against her in courts". That the insight in the summary that will preface to the ill-gotten wealth section Phthalocyan (talk) 16:21, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

You are trying to move it too a less prominent position after the allegations just before it. See Wikipedia's NPOV guideline: Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. By moving away inside the article, Wikipedia's NPOV principle is being violated. Thetruth16 (talk) 16:22, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

If we want to have some quantitative measurement on the above guidelines, you can count how many disparaging words there are in the summary regarding corruption allegations vs the number of words there are which shows a different point-of-view. You'll see that accusations are way more prominent and have far more words. The sentence you're moving has to be there to comply with Wikipedia's NPOV on Due and Undue Weight. Thetruth16 (talk) 16:28, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand why are you still telling about the NPOV issue. I edited it out for the sake of simplicity and avoiding redundancy. This is an issue of writing style. Again, that particular line has been prefaced. No need to put the full details on a summary. If it's an issue of quantity, you can summarize the corruption allegations and move it to the ill-gotten wealth portion. Phthalocyan (talk) 16:32, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any redundancy. It actually nicely summarizes the long paragraph above which discussed a list of court cases. I would even argue that this last sentence should be retained in the summary as it nicely summarizes the outstanding cases, and the details of the corruption and trials be put inside the article. But this is going to be a long discussion.

Thetruth16 (talk) 16:41, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

On second thought, the whole Imelda cases details should be transferred as a whole. Phthalocyan (talk) 16:44, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Possible but it could be contentious to do it. One could argue that the cases filed against her is an extension of recovering Marcos' alleged ill-gotten wealth. You can go to the talk page and re-write that part and build a consensus first. Thetruth16 (talk) 16:50, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

You posted on my talk page, "If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors" Now, you are trying to make deletions / move sections which has been reserved 3 times already because of your continued refusal to discuss first? Thetruth16 (talk) 17:06, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Again, that goes back to you. You're reverting and reverting without the proper talking. It's a solution to consider your points and you said it yourself that "then the paragraph preceding it has to be moved as well". However, I only moved a chunk because for the sake of preface. Phthalocyan (talk) 17:31, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

As you notice, by transferring the 2008-2012 cases from the summary to the section, it connects to the 1990-1998 Imelda case chronology. If you want to revert back, you should include the 1990-1998 timeline, but that will not make sense for a summary.Phthalocyan (talk) 17:40, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I'll create a section on the article talk page. Let's discuss there. Thetruth16 (talk) 17:50, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Martial Law in the Philippines Article
Hello! I am new to editing articles in Wikipedia and I thought I can lend you a hand in one of the pages that you are editing. Martial Law in the Philippines. I just want to point out that the part of the article that says Martial Law was blamed on the CPP-NPA, communists is erroneous and is backed by a non-existent opinion column from inquirer which is Reference [24] in the said article. Reference [14] is a 2014 article from rappler and was incorrectly used to say that China has been exporting weapons in 1972. How can a 2014 article back-up a 1972 event wherein it did not mention 1972 at all in the article? Liliosa Hilao, the first martial law detainee killed, was also removed from the article. I would really like to help in fixing the article and I will try to cross-reference and compare old revisions as soon as I have the time. I appreciate your efforts in trying to correct this page. Please keep it up. Expect some more help from other people soon. Thank you! NoToRevisionism (talk) 19:55, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi NoToRevisionism, I am on the mode of cross-checking each reference for revision, paraphrasing or deletion but needs a lot of help too. The article on Martial Law in the Philippines was particularly misleading because the narrative on CPP-NPA was too long yet the sources are either opinion based, conspiracy or cherry-picked facts. Some of the entries don't even represent the source itself. Important is that we abide to Wikipedia's policies (WP:NPOV and WP:RS) as all reliable sources must be put into good consideration. Editors can report others disruptive editors who don't abide at policies or enter edit-warring by posting Wikipedia templates on their talk pages (see WP:WARN). Let's do our best! Phthalocyan (talk) 20:08, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi, new to Wikipedia and at a loss on how to help out with the mess of the Martial Law article. It needs better organizing on the sections. How can I help here? Also, for reference, there is a write-up on the economy during the Marcos Era by Cesar Polvorosa Jr, an economics professor. http://interaksyon.com/article/124649/commentary--the-philippine-economy-in-the-martial-law-years-and-30-years-after-edsa BreakthroughCoalition (talk) 10:02, 12 December 2016 (UTC)Breakthrough Coalition

Hi BreakthroughCoalition, (might as well NoToRevisionism) the article is riddled with issues. As tagged in the article itself there are three main issues with the article: 1. unverified or unreliable source, 2. neutrality, 3. unbalanced views. Let me detail some of the issues:

a) The article is riddled with questionable sources. Some sources are cherry-picked too much, that they do not represent some of the sources itself, just to prove a point. Some sources are too based on opinion, conspiracy and memoirs with poor or no editorial control. The article warrants a full clean-up on which entries are reliable (WP:RS) and to express the sources better. For example, the source on MV Karagatan theory, connection with first quarter storm and Marcos' memoirs are included in this issue.

b)The narrative itself blames martial law too much on the communist insurgency. Yes, perhaps this is a certain truth to this, as this was cited by Marcos himself for the declaration. But the entries makes poor connection with the two. It is true the communist insurgency have risen during that time but there are no reliable references that can fully attest and make a good connection between the two. Most references are from writers who dwell too much on conspiracy or from timeline of events that tries to put the two together.

c)The entries on the economy during martial law is too much leaning on the positive effects but little focus on the negative effects of martial law (debt-servicing, poor wage, production and GDP growth).

d)The construction itself is ugly. There is no clear chronology of events or clear outline. Its more of a mashup of multiple facts brought into a unclear narrative.

Phthalocyan (talk) 11:14, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: List of films about Martial Law in the Philippines has been accepted
 List of films about Martial Law in the Philippines, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as List-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. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! Atlantic306 (talk) 02:46, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

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!

Join the Months of African Cinema Global Contest!
Ýou can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

The Months of African Cinema Contest Continues in November!
You can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

Welcome to the Months of African Cinema Global Contest!
Ýou can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

The Months of African Cinema Contest Continues in November!
You can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list