User talk:Titopao/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


hi[edit]

remember me? im pikasneez27

Pikasneez27 has smiled at you! thanks for the user box again, i just changed it a little today


I'm aware that the link is nofollowed. I do not operate the site and don't care for SEO. It's a good source promoted by the eastwood information centre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EastwoodGuy (talk • contribs) 06:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pasalubong[edit]

Helu TitoPao. We tried to edit and add information in Pasalubong, but to no avail, I think it is not yet a good article. If you have time and if you are interested, feel free to add information and reference in that article. TY! Axxand (talk) 18:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please participate on Wikimedia Philippines discussions[edit]

-Jojit (talk) 03:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: 203.177.240.215[edit]

OK, sorry about that, it's just that I'm sick and tired of that vandal, who, by the way is the sockpuppeteer/Angel Locsin fanboy named User:Gerald Gonzalez... Blake Gripling (talk) 04:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, regarding Gerald, I'll keep an eye on that... Blake Gripling (talk) 04:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation[edit]

Hi! maxsch created an RFC for myself User:Florentino floro - Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Florentino floro[1] I would appreciate it if you would take a look. Max created this upon message to my adopting parent User:Diligent Terrier here[2] vis-a-vis the pending User:Diligent Terrier/Florentino floro and Maxschmelling (created on 18:38, 18 May 2008 by Diligent Terrier) Thanks.--Florentino floro (talk) 05:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Clarification on editing and creating an article[edit]

I found the template and read User:Cma page which states:As such, he is reported to have one of the biggest egos in history. Cma added and edited the template, stating it is n Wikipedia article instead of Wiki Page. So, I granted the request and found the links which established the fact that Cma is really the biggest egos in history. So, I opted to submit on Cma discussion page my propose edit:

This article lacks information on the importance of the subject matter.
If you are familiar with it, please expand the article, or discuss its significance on the talk page.

:[3]

Since the BBC link puts Cma there, aside from being Manager of IBM, then, may I ask if I can create an article [4]Dominique Gerald Cimafranca. For your comment and approval. This is very relevant in resolving our Rfc with Max since Wiki rules require us to resolve this in good faith. Waiting for your comment.
news.bbc.co.ukDominique Cimafranca: Nothing has changed in Philippines politics (Dominique Cimafranca

Manager, Technical Support Group, IBM Corporation)[5]Regards--Florentino floro (talk) 10:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Flaminsky vis-a-vis User:Cma and IP address of Max[edit]

Thanks for your view on our Rfc. I hope this is not TLDR due to complex issues. Regards.

Request for enlightenment on the interpretation of Wiki rules[edit]

  • Wikipedia:Sock puppetry The general rule is: one editor, one account. Do not use multiple accounts to create the illusion of greater support for an issue, to mislead others, to artificially stir up controversy, to aid in disruption, or to circumvent a block.User:Flaminsky = User:Cma
  • Circumventing policy - Sock puppets may not be used to circumvent any Arbitration Committee or community sanctions, including blocks, bans, and probations. Evading sanctions will cause the timer to restart, and may lengthen the duration of the sanctions.[6]
  • Meatpuppet is a Wikipedia term of art meaning one who edits on behalf of or as proxy for another editor.User:Flaminsky
  • Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets If you think that someone is using sockpuppets and wish to get further people's comments on the matter, you should create a report at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets and follow the instructions there.

Question: Is a case of Suck puppetry the proper mode of action here? Please do answer this query.

Who is User:Cma?/Dom/Dominique Gerald Cimafranca[edit]

User:Flaminsky, deleted due to vandalism, created User:Cma. Who is Flaminsky and Cma? This is answered by Cma's edit of link:[7] - which clearly and unequivocally showed that Cma is: Filipino Wikipedian and blogger:Dominique Gerald Cimafranca or "Dom"

  • Evidence:
  • Dominique Gerald M. Cimafranca is an IT Specialist for IBM Asia-Pacific's Emerging and Competitive Markets team. In this role, he works on Linux, Digital Media, and Life Sciences opportunities. Prior to this, he also worked for IBM's NetGen and e-Business teams. He is responsible for the first RS/6000® SP-based ISP installation in Asia. He has been working with IBM since 1997 and is co-author of a firewall RedBook.

Village Idiot Savant | Web site: http://www.sketches.kom.ph, Dumaguete City, Philippines[8] Before joining IBM, Dominique worked with Digital Equipment Corporation as a firewall and Internet consultant. He has been involved in customer engagements in over 18 countries[9]The Camel and the Snake, or "Cheat the Prophet", Open source development with Perl, Python, and DB2; Jetspeed,

Why did Cma/Dominique Gerald Cimafranca delete by edit the link?[edit]

Answer: Cma made a mistake of exposing his identity in Wikipedia, amid Cma's only agenda in Wikipedia: Surveillance and police investigative journalism as blogger contra all those who might be :inflicting their wrath through letters, blogs, Photoshop contests, and other zany means of reaction" commited by a specific User:Florentino floro. Cma committed a mistake that Floro is anti Gma. Floro never voted since 1965 and is apolitical, a pure scientist, and hater of psychic phenomena, closed Catholic though, but respect skeptics and atheists so much. The predictions and prophecies of Floro were all over internet, since Floro as lawyer is aware that Floro cannot Libel, defame or attack anybody lest he be indicted. Thus, Floro's wit, cleverly used religion and free speech by using Cryptology: angels, imprecation, etc. all protected by Wikipedia and USA Philippines laws and policies. [[18] -philippine-defense-squad.txt v 0.1- This text file seeks to become a comprehensive listing of all instances of times when Filipinos overreact to criticism (both deserved and undeserved) by descending upon the subject like a swarm of angry bees and inflicting their wrath through letters, blogs, Photoshop contests, and other zany means of reaction. Anyone who figures out how to contact me is welcome to contribute. * the spoon incident in Canada, which really turned out to be the fault of the boy; * former Chief Justice Isagani Cruz's comments against gays; *Inquirer inaccurately reports that Malacanang tells people to forget EDSA II. Bloggers furious. Other contributors (contact me if I've forgotten to add you): 1. Dominique Cimafranca for various entries - User:Cma; 4. Michael Gonzalez[19][20][21] [22]: Malacanang: Forget EDSA II - User:TheCoffee, Filipino Wikipedia administrator

History of user page User:Cma[edit]

Revision history of User:Cma[edit]
  • (cur) (last) 14:55, 21 February 2008 Cma (Talk | contribs) (1,466 bytes) (undo)

Cma deleted the link *Location of CMA's personal website

  • (cur) (last) 05:06, 30 October 2006 Cma (Talk | contribs) m (undo) -Cma created and identified his website that was already created:*Location of CMA's personal website When opened Cma's link showed and identified Cma as:[23] - Gods, gameGoDS is a homebrew go game for the Nintendo DS.

Nintendo optical disc[24] -philippine-defense-squad.txt v 0.1- This text file seeks to become a comprehensive listing of all instances of times when Filipinos overreact to criticism (both deserved and undeserved) by descending upon the subject like a swarm of angry bees and inflicting their wrath through letters, blogs, Photoshop contests, and other zany means of reaction. Anyone who figures out how to contact me is welcome to contribute. * the spoon incident in Canada, which really turned out to be the fault of the boy; * former Chief Justice Isagani Cruz's comments against gays; *Inquirer inaccurately reports that Malacanang tells people to forget EDSA II. Bloggers furious. Other contributors (contact me if I've forgotten to add you): 1. Dominique Cimafranca for various entries - User:Cma; 4. Michael Gonzalez: Malacanang: Forget EDSA II - User:TheCoffee, Filipino Wikipedia administrator

  • (cur) (last) 03:53, 16 June 2006 RoryBot (Talk | contribs) (BOT- bypassing cross-namespace redirect using AWB) (undo)
  • (cur) (last) 16:37, 2 October 2005 Cma (Talk | contribs) (Did a subst instead of a category so my ego wouldn't actually be transcluded.) (undo)
This article lacks information on the importance of the subject matter.
If you are familiar with it, please expand the article, or discuss its significance on the talk page.
  • (cur) (last) 09:31, 1 October 2005 Kjkolb (Talk | contribs) (removed "importance" tag, it was showing up in the category) (undo)
  • (cur) (last) 04:34, 15 September 2005 Cma (Talk | contribs) (Category: Filipino Wikipedians) (undo)

add -

Sorry about the Mel gibson edits, just playing around too much on my part, -FlaminskyUser:Flaminsky -Wikipedia:Why was my page deleted?[26]
History of Cma's creator - User talk:Flaminsky[27][edit]
Vandalism[edit]
  • Please do not edit other users' User pages. Please click the "Discussion" tab to put messages on a user talk page. ral315 05:34, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Please refrain from adding nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to Oregon. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. VegaDark 05:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User contributions of User:Flaminsky[28][edit]
  1. 05:42, 2 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Oregon # 05:33, 17 June 2005 (hist) (diff) User:Cma # 04:23, 16 June 2005 (hist) (diff) m Mel Gibson

IP Address of User:Maxschmelling[edit]

[29]With all due respect, may I please write hereunder, a very important - critical fact of this discussion. Max used an IP address and later asked apology for not using Max's username. This is utter bad faith, which might have caused the mediator/s to be misled. At any rate, I write this for the better solution of this dispute in good faith::Max[30] admitted:

"I promise to be terse. It is not irrelevant to bring up evidence of a conflict of interest. You have a personal stake in "coconut healing oil" and thus what you choose to write about it should be critically viewed, especially if there are questions about the sources you use as evidence. 59.183.139.189 (talk) 06:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I wasn't logged in when I wrote this, but it was me. maxsch (talk) 12:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)"[reply]
This is direly important in this discussion, since Max admitted per research that Max replied from India, Bombai.

Lookup IP Address: 59.183.139.189[31]Hostname:triband-mum-59.183.139.189.mtnl.net.in ISP:Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd.Organization:Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd.Proxy:None detectedType:Cable/DSL, Country:India State/Region:16-City:Bombay, Latitude:18.975, Longitude:72.8258--Florentino floro (talk) 06:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that it is direly important. In fact I think it is pretty much irrelevant. I was passing through Mumbai, using an unfamiliar computer and I wasn't logged in. I soon added my username to the unsigned comments so that no one would be misled. I am not from India, but as I have said before, my natioanality is of no importance to this dispute. maxsch (talk) 14:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shiva, Mumbai, Bombai[edit]

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser[32]--Florentino floro (talk) 11:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Falsification?[edit]

Hi, may I ask your view on this[33], but before you read it. This one first.

Florentino floro (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

----Florentino floro (talk) 13:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi[edit]

I replied to your query here[34]. BTW, are you still with Meycauayan choir? If, so, can you let my brother (10 years ago with Eman Dazo) join yours, since I urge him, so. Cheers.--Florentino floro (talk) 13:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Titopao[edit]

Extension of Rfc outside 30 days, might be hard, except if the Bot will grant an extension. Rfc really is a cordial place, in fact, the lowest forum in Wikipedia to settle minor differences, not like this. Evan or my parent D. Terrier with wisdom and kindness suggested this. But I found this quite odd for Max and Cma/User:Flaminsky since, the very lis mota or pivotal issues raised in the controversy - are too complex to decipher. Please devote some time to pen your comments on these: a) User:Diligent Terrier/Florentino floro and Maxschmelling and b) Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Florentino floro. God Bless, sing praise to the Lord.--Florentino floro (talk) 12:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do take your time, feel free.[35]--Florentino floro (talk) 12:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, may I respectfully ask you some time to share your view on this[36]. Essentially, I asked the WP:ANI on the validity of User:Cma vis-a-vis User:Flaminsky, - re Vandalism.
And if you have more time, please share more thoughts on the Rfc Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Florentino floro where you contributed. Thanks.- --Florentino floro (talk) 09:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello[edit]

Hi, greetings. Please, if you may have some free time, visit my query to my parent User:Diligent Terrier here in User:Diligent Terrier/Florentino floro and Maxschmelling[37] where some users had recently filed comments. This is in relation to the present Rfc Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Florentino floro. Cheers.--Florentino floro (talk) 12:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Just sayin thanks, for your comment on our RFC-this[38] and the epilogue. Cheers.--Florentino floro (talk) 06:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My Rfa[edit]

Thanks Titopao for the post-Rfa support and for the advice. --Efe (talk) 07:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Floro[edit]

I really don't think there's a need to give so much evidence when it's so obvious. For instance, take his latest puppet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Village_Idiot_Sabant --Migs (talk) 11:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tambayan 2009 Meet in planning[edit]

Found this in the internet.[39] Seems so cute, noh?[40] Are you joining the next meet of Pinoy Wiki meeting?--124.106.81.33 (talk) 09:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a test --- 122.52.92.184 (talk) 08:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New PH flag[edit]

how is this?

User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'plate[edit]

Um, not sure why you are templating my talk page. It's fine for the user page, but this is a static IP, for which I am the current sole user, barring the rare over-excitement of my cats. -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 07:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC) Hmmm, I checked your history, and you seem to be doing this repeatedly. These templates generally belong on user pages, not user talk pages if memory serves.... -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 07:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

message from rick havoc re: iglesia[edit]

hi, you sent a message to my talk page for alleged unverified source, i'm not sure why... anyway, the alleged edits i made in the iglesia page which you removed were not really "edits" at all, im just simply bringing back what was there YEARS ago... somebody has deleted it along the way so im just bringing it back. i was not even the first person to place it there, as im fairly new to wiki compared to you.

please check and VERIFY the history page of the iglesia before making any comments on my talk page. its really not a "controversial" issue as you put it, but a resolved one, resolved by no less than OUR supreme court. kindly click on this link so you can find out for yourself... http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/aug2000/127803.htm ... i hope you can understand court jargon.

now that you know, can you PLEASE RESTORE what you have unjustifiably deleted, unless you still have other reasons not to include such facts in the iglesia page. by the way, im a lawyer. PAX. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rickhavoc (talk • contribs) 16:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

reply from rick havoc re: iglesia[edit]

amazing, quick reply, i admire your dedication to wiki.

in your original message to me, you said that, and i quote...

"Please do not add content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to Iglesia ni Cristo."

according to you, i failed to put a verifiable source. i am not guilty of such acts. as you can plainly see in the edits i made, i placed, in parenthesis, the name, date and number of the case in question which can easily be verified in any college library or even in the supreme court's web page. is that not compliance enough? And yet, you went ahead and deleted them just the same even if I cited there a verifiable source. the fact that i did not put a "link" to such information doesnt mean that i am in violation of the guidelines.

NOW, you're asking what's the "relevance" of the edits i am making. you should have told me that EARLIER if that was what you wanted from me, but instead, you criticized me for not putting a verifiable source and nothing more. i cannot find anything in your original messages to me that points to "relevance". none whatsoever.

as i mentioned to you before, i'm a lawyer, im not saying this to brag about my educational attainment, but to say that i think like a lawyer. if your criticism was about relevance all along and not about my alleged failure to quote a verifiable source, then you should have said so in the first place.

as i have already pointed out, the edits i made were originally there years ago, but somebody deleted it, albeit surreptitiously... now you are saying that i should prove to YOU, tito pao, that what im "insisting" on is relevant to the matter. You said, "Can YOU give me a good reason why that particular kidnapping incident should be included on the article about the Iglesia ni Cristo?"

who are you, tito pao, a young computer wiz from manila, or me, rick havoc, an old lawyer-journalist from manila, to say what is relevant or not? who are we to say that a particular fact is not relevant to the matter, and therefore should be included or deleted... who made us guardians of the factual contents of wikipedia? relevance is a very subjective matter, i hope you are not touting that "you" are one of the standards of relevancy in the iglesia page.

thus, you are telling me, and basically to all the wikipedians who share my view, that we should first PROVE to YOU, or give YOU a "good reason", that a particular fact is relevant before YOU will allow it to be placed in the iglesia page. and if YOU feel or think that a particular fact is not up to your standards of "relevancy" you will delete it as you see fit.

thus, the torture and murder committed by a dozen or so members/deacons of iglesia against four kids, with the alleged knowledge of their pastor, committed inside their church, is not relevant to the iglesia page even if all of these facts have been proven in court. and yet, news reports about alleged hoarding of guns by the iglesia are relevant to you even if these "facts" are mere hearsay and unverifiable.

one should ask what standards of relevancy are you using.

In the same vein, are you saying that criticisms about alleged sexual abuses committed by a few members of the roman catholic clergy as against their 1.4 million priests and workers not relevant to the catholic page? do you think that the pope condones such acts committed by a few priests? of course not, and yet you can read them in the main catholic page. Should you should DELETE them also, tito pao?

first, the facts im insisting on where already there many years ago, i just placed it back.. are you saying that PREVIOUSLY such facts were relevant but TODAY they are no longer just because you say so?

secondly, i already read the comments of other "concerned" people on whether or not such facts are relevant. but please note that those facts stayed there even if the other wikipedians were debating about it.

more importantly, i believe you should let the reader decide whether or not a certain information is relevant, just like most of the pages about religion in wiki which contains higly controversial facts committed by very few members and not necessarily involving the ENTIRE church. if you delete facts, then how will the reader know? by deleting such information, you are effectively and deliberately STOPPING the flow of information... just like what oppressive regimes do - curtail people's right to information. will you also be like other people who will deliberately censor certain information damaging to them?

what are you afraid of? do you think the readers would not be able to handle the truth? by doing so, you are going against the very foundations of wiki - openness and access to information.

finally, lets read wiki rules... according to wiki guidelines, "Substandard or disputed information is subject to removal." The edits im insisting are neither substandard or disputed but are easily verifiable facts that have been proven by no less than the supreme court. in my edits, i cited, in parenthesis, "verifiable and authoritative sources" knowing that such facts controversial. again, im just placing back what was already in the iglesia page years ago.

stop and think for a moment. maybe you are becoming too zealous about your part here in wikipedia. let the others have their say in this community also.

now, can you please put back the information which you deleted for the sake of the readers of wikipedia. in any event, the iglesia page is already convuluted with all kinds of facts and information... im not if sure my "edits" will be noticed at all, except only by you. if you really want to "police" or "clean up" the iglesia page, may i suggest putting all criticisms and controversies in a separate page, but then again, im not sure if the other contributors will agree to that...

PAX

"On March 8, 1992, at around 9:00 p.m., some 10 to 13 members and officers of the INC aboard a white Ford Fiera kidnapped five young adults in Sta. Mesa, Manila with the help of a local policeman who was also member of the INC. The kidnapping was in response to an altercation in a basketball game that happened the previous day at the vicinity of Dalisay and Lakas Streets, Bacood, Sta. Mesa, Manila. A female witness, also an INC member, told the court that she saw the kidnappers brought the victims to the basement of Iglesia ni Cristo chapel in Sta. Mesa, Manila, which was at the back of the chapel and beneath the choir office, at around 10:00 p.m.. Inside, the witness saw the victims were tortured to the point of death. According to the Supreme Court, the victims were mauled, tortured and beaten by their captors, who included "high ranking officers" of the INC, using steel tubes, lead pipes, guns and other blunt instruments, inside the basement of the church. The witness even saw one of the perpetrators bringing a blow torch inside the basement where the victims were kept while hearing cries for mercy. A pastor of the INC was seen in the church compound when the incident happened. In the morning of March 10, 1992, the victims’ bodies were found floating on the Pasig River near Beata-Tawiran in Pandacan. (People vs. Abella, Supreme Court of the Philippines, G.R. No. 127803, August 28, 2000).

Postmortem examinations on the victims showed signs of foul play. MARLON’s hands were tied at the back with a black electric cord. He had lacerated wounds, contusions, ligature marks and hematoma. He died from a gunshot wound on the head. ANDRES’ hands were bound at the back with a plastic flat rope with four loops. His genitals were cut off; and he had ligature marks, contusions, and hematoma. The cause of his death was “asphyxia by strangulation; hemorrhage, intracranial, traumatic.” JOSEPH’s hands were “hog-tied at the back using a basketball T-shirt.” He also had ligature marks, contusions, lacerated wounds and fracture. He died of “asphyxia by strangulation; hemorrhage, intracranial, traumatic with skull fracture.” ERWIN’s body showed abrasions and burns. There were cord impressions on his wrists and depressed fracture on his head and at the base of his skull. He died of “asphyxia by drowning with blunt head injury.” FELIX had abrasions on the left cheek and tie impressions on the wrists. The cause of his death was “asphyxia by drowning." Although eye witnesses told police that around a dozen members of the INC participated in the kidnapping of the victims, only four of them, including the policeman, were arrested and eventually convicted for the murders. The four were given life sentences. (People vs. Abella, Supreme Court of the Philippines, G.R. No. 127803, August 28, 2000)." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rickhavoc (talk • contribs) 04:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AKRHO[edit]

good work with cleaning up the article, now let's see if this SPA tries to come back there and revert war the way he did when I took out the item on Francis M's supposed membership. I wanted to talk much about this during Manila 5, but there was a danger that some Akrho asshole would overhear it and jump into the conversation. --Eaglestorm (talk) 19:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

witchy2006 sock[edit]

Remember that User:Witchy2006 sock who made all that noise on Tayong Dalawa and even in my talk page? He's back, and I've posted IP notices on all the anon pages, no WHOIS yet. --Eaglestorm (talk) 10:55, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Need Your Help Sir[edit]

Dear Titopao,

We have read your Wikipedia warnings and would like to abide by the Wikipedia rules. We have positive articles about congressman arroyo but we are relatively new to Wikipedia and its rules. How do we get in touch with you regarding Wikipedia edits?

Thank You —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pampanga88 (talk • contribs) 13:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lambanog[edit]

Frak him. He's saying we took the bait? Eh loko pala siya eh (Isn't he the crazy one) in trying to trim down the page...and being 'relatively new' is not an excuse to do whatever he wants. --Eaglestorm (talk) 05:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eaglestorm if you wish to tell me something, you could always try doing so directly.
Pao I doubt GraYoshi2x is as familiar with details regarding Erap as I am with Krugman's and Tchaikovsky's work. Lambanog (talk) 15:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then maybe you could, at least, give him the benefit of the doubt for making that edit. I see no reason why you have to respond to him in this particular manner. Cut him some slack, if you please. Are you trying to say that just because he's not Filipino, he has no business butting in the Erap article, and only us Pinoys have the right to edit it as we please?
Since Eaglestorm already opened a report on the Admins' Noticeboard, then maybe you can continue your (i.e. you and Eaglestorm) discussion there. Let's leave it to the wisdom of the more experienced admins, hindi ako manghihimasok sa magiging desisyon ng admin (I won't stand in the way of the admin's decision).
One more thing---and I hope this becomes very, veryclear to you. Regardless of whether you exceeded the three-revert limit or not, edit-warring is not tolerated on Wikipedia. Next time, please try to at least discuss the other editor/s edits on their own Talk page first to discuss any particular issues and to clarify any misunderstandings. (Also, removing content on Talk pages is sometimes permitted, it does not mean that it automatically counts as a vandalism. See the talk page guidelines for more information.) --- Tito Pao (talk) 02:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain why I am not being accorded the same benefit of the doubt you allude to. I was invited to the Tambayan page for my comments and participated in the discussion in good faith. Are you suggesting I should have carried on two conversations on two different pages for the same thing? I don't see how that furthers the interests of clarity. In any event for Eaglestorm, after having personally just initiated an action to block me, to unilaterally shut down the discussion displayed a lack of delicadeza. Of course considering his colorful Battlestar Galactica language what should I expect? The question is still open though on what I should expect from someone like you.
Edits should be done in good faith correct? If there is reason to question good faith, there is reason to question the motives of an edit. Due to his inflammatory unsupported comment regarding my edit and the earlier context I've provided, I question GY2x's good faith. Let him explain his reasons in detail. If he is dealing in good faith I see no reason why he should avoid doing so. In fact I would argue someone dealing in good faith would likely go out of their way to clarify the situation.
Anyway since it seems you tire of all this, I will refrain from posting here again on this issue. (Edited 1 time. Looked at archive and saw request to not use the vernacular was consistently requested. Apologies.) Lambanog (talk) 11:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On Angelito Sarmiento & City of San Jose del Monte[edit]

Hate to think about it, but on both articles it's slowly escalating into an edit war. Can we block/prohibit non-registered users (those with IP addresses for usernames) from editing the Angelito Sarmiento and City of San Jose del Monte articles by putting the ((pp-vandalism|date=October 2009)) tag?? Thanks Reyrefran (talk) 16:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Umm...first things first. I'm not an admin, so I'm not in a position to put articles under prot (or even a semiprot). Adding the "lock" tag or icon will not automatically lock the article, you'll have to make a request for protection (click on the link to file a report yourself. Be aware, however, that a request can be denied if the processing admin will be unable to find substantial reason for protecting an article.
You can also try reporting the contentious edits to the three revert-rule/edit warring noticeboard. I'm not sure how it will fare, though, since most of the recent contentious edits came from anons. One thing's for certain, those edits are clearly not vandal edits as I can see with the edit summaries so far.
Maybe it would also help if you can add news sources into the article? Specifically, those that refer to this Sarmiento-San Pedro thing. Articles from news outfits such as TV stations (ABS, GMA, etc.) and newspapers (Inquirer, Bulletin, Star, etc.) are good for a start. That way, we can always challenge the other editors to come up with their own sources that everyone else can confirm. Print sources are probably okay, as long as you can add the proper citations.
In the meantime, I'll check on each of the anons and try to put user warnings on each of the contentious edits. Let's see if this will help resolve some of the issues they have with the edits. --- Tito Pao (talk) 01:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. The thing is, there's no more significant news coverage of the issue following the Sarmiento-San Pedro fracas; the fact is, bot Sarmiento & San Pedro are the ones discharging duties of the Office of the Mayor in CSJDM and as such will it be the most logical one if the one declared by the Comelec is the legal mayor, so as to avoid confusion? Reyrefran (talk) 08:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hala, I didn't know that that's the situation in SJDM :P Yes, I think the COMELEC resolution on this matter, should there be any, would put the matter to rest, even if momentarily. That's better than the anons who insist on making their edits without providing sources. --- Tito Pao (talk) 09:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I'm sorry for this.[edit]

The article 2010 in the Philippines was removing some births and deaths, Can you back them, I'm also the article editor of this, Non-notable is notable, some references is ok. Please forgive me for this hoax. THANKS - Gabby 14:30, 29 March 2010 (PST)

getting back[edit]

am finding my way back here. check email. updates soon. Ate Pinay (talk•email) 23:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arnold Zamora, etc[edit]

Hi! I updated recent events today, but some links do not work anymore including the Bukas Palad message board. Can you please check as well as other info. Thank you.

Francis Escudero also needs to be updated. will get to this soon.
So when are we doing your wish list - Manuel Francisco? Let me know. Pinay (talk•email) 03:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are now a Reviewer[edit]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 17:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Titopao, congratulations! what an honor! you certainly deserve it. i am home in bohol. please call or text me. i sent my contact info in an email to you. ingat lagi and see you soon! - Pinay (talk•email) 02:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Titopao/Archive_4&oldid=1050402178"