Usapang tagagamit:23prootie/3

January 2009

If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you have been doing to Adolf Hitler, Oprah Winfrey, and List of people who have been considered deities, you will be blocked from editing. Parsecboy (talk) 23:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Validly sourced, but fine I'll stop adding the categories. have a little sense of humor. --23prootie (talk) 23:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Welcome, and thank you for your attempt to lighten up Wikipedia. However, this is an encyclopedia and the articles are intended to be serious, so please don't make joke edits, as you did to List of people who have been considered deities. Readers looking for accurate information will not find them amusing. If you'd like to experiment with editing, try the sandbox, where you can write (almost) whatever you want. An episode of Futurama is not a reliable source on dieties. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 00:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

There are other sources that validly support that claim such as the one implying her as a "Earth Mother Goddess.--23prootie (talk) 00:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

"Implying" isn't good enough, as that involves you "inferring", which is original research. People frequently use hyperbole in describing people as 'gods'. The point of this article is to list real people who have seriously and religiously been regarded as deities. I don't think you'll find many who actually believe that Oprah is a supernatural deity. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 00:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about that.. but I'll stop okay.--23prootie (talk) 00:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to 2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Please discuss major structural and other changes with other editors. Thank you. Striking the above, I cut your edits, but had intended to cut the edits to the lead, was a busy day please excuse me. RomaC (talk) 07:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

On redirecting Mary Ejercito to Doña Mary Ejercito

With due respect, I object to the redirect you just did of Mary Ejercito to Doña Mary Ejercito. Doña is an honorific and not a part of her legal name. Per WP:NCP, "Do not have additional qualifiers (such as "King", "Saint", "Dr.", "(person)", "(ship)"), except when this is the simplest and most NPOV way to deal with disambiguation." Moreover, the usage of Don or Doña is highly subjective. Those who admired Claro M. Recto were more inclined to dub him Don Claro than those who didn't. --Anyo Niminus (talk) 04:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Its her screen name. It is also her most recognizable name.--23prootie (talk) 04:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The screen name analogy does not apply to her since she was never an actress or otherwise used a screen or pen name. Using Doña will create an untidy precedent, since a lot of older well-known Filipinos are also frequently referred to as Don or Doña. Anyway, I'm raising this at WP:TAMBAY to generate wider consensus on what should be done. --Anyo Niminus (talk) 05:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi=

You've completely removed the UN from the Gaza reactions sub heading, is this permamnent? Superpie (talk) 06:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Kinda, moved it to the un-only section.--23prootie (talk) 06:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Diplomatic missions by country

Hi there 23prootie,

I notice that you have reordered the continents and countries listed in a few of the diplomatic missions by country articles.

In case you are unaware, the categories for continents are not arbitrary in these articles, but rather reflect the United Nations geoscheme. This has prevented arguments emerging about how countries should be placed or ordered, or how continents should be named, allowing us to concentrate more on improving the articles

It really doesn't matter in which order we list continents in the UN Geoscheme, however consistency is a Wikipedia requirement, and I do not think we really want to resort countries in 180 articles.

It is good to be bold and propose new edits. If you can provide any compelling reasons to regular contributors to these articles why we should get rid of what is a perfectly useful and practical system, please do so.

To prevent wasting your time, I suggest you seek a consensus first, showing how the examples you have made are an improvement over the existing articles. It may also be in your interests to avoid making comments like Europe is now poor, hehe Asia rich if you want to be taken seriously. Kransky (talk) 06:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I was just fooling around. I just can't help how un-alphabetical the list is. Why does Europe have to be always on top? It kinda makes me cringe a bit.--23prootie (talk) 07:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I cannot remember why in the first articles Europe was placed on top, but if is any consolation I am Australian and Oceania is at the bottom! The list is unalphabetical because it is sorted into continents, which makes it easier to understand the network of a country in a particular region. If you have nothing further to add I would like to revert your changes. Thanks. Kransky (talk) 10:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Iron Palace

A tag has been placed on Iron Palace requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the article or have a copy emailed to you. FlyingToaster 22:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

No content in Category:Philippine territorial disputes

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Philippine territorial disputes, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Philippine territorial disputes has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Philippine territorial disputes, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 00:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The source of File:Gloria!!!.jpg

I have deleted this image as it was wrongly tagged as having a creative commons license. The website where it was sourced states that all content is 'Copyright © 2004-2008 by Bryanboy.com. All Rights Reserved.'. Do not upload further images with incorrect licenses. Nick-D (talk) 03:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Black British

Template:Black British 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. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Map on Late 2000s recession

Prootie:

Thanks for putting up a good, descriptive map of how all this is affecting the World at large - I think it helps put the problem in perspective.

I wanted to share this International Herald Tribune article, put up earlier today, and thought you might find it useful for your map.

Write me back with any questions and keep on doing what you do, Prootie.

All the best,

Nononsenseplease (talk) 03:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Allies of World War II

I've just reverted your change to this article again. I don't think that non-independent states should be identified as separate combatants as such countries did not have a foreign policy independent of their 'parent' country. It is also highly misleading to subordinate the self-governing dominions such as Australia and Canada to the British Commonwealth, as these countries were fully independent, and their decision to go to war was not automatic. The Commonwealth was (and remains) not much more than a association of countries, and was not any form of central government. Nick-D (talk) 03:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

But the Philippines was technically independent with its own president and constitution (which continued to be enforced after July 4, 1946). --[[User:23prootie|<b><font color="olive">23</font><font color="pink" >prootie<font color="orange" >cute</b></font>]] (talk) 03:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Allies of World War II. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Please discuss this on the article's talk page. I note that I'm up to two, and will also cease reverting changes to the article. Nick-D (talk) 03:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to live with that as a compromise. I note, however, that this edit: [1] made after the 3RR warning was in fact a further revert, and not a mere 'edit' as your edit summary stated, and this could have led to you being blocked by an uninvolved admin even though you did then revert yourself. Please note that there has been a very long-running discussion over the countries to include in the Pacific War article's infobox and you should not overturn the results of this discussion. Nick-D (talk) 05:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Please stop your edit warring and discuss the contents of the infobox before making further changes. Nick-D (talk) 06:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that... MacArthur was commander of the Philippine Army and played a bigger role there than in the U.S., the rest are pretty much major leaders of the Philippines during the war.--[[User:23prootie|<b><font color="olive">23</font><font color="pink" >prootie<font color="orange" >cute</b></font>]] (talk) 06:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

No military commanders are in the infobox: all the leaders there are national leaders. Nick-D (talk) 06:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

War flag of the Philippines

The upside-down 'war flag' or 'war ensign' of the Philippines wasn't official until presidential order in 1950. Please stop adding this flag to pre-1950 history. Binksternet (talk) 19:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure. sorry. My mistake

Tydings-McDuffie Act

The Tydings-McDuffie Act did not give the Philippines full sovereignty. Such total self-rule was supposed to happen in 1944 but the Japanese had other ideas. Binksternet (talk) 19:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

No actually it did, the constitution after the supposed independence was the same, the country had its own government, elections, and military. It was even able to join the United Nations as a state and most of all Manuel L. Quezon was considered as a leader of a government-in-exile when he was in the United States, so basically, barring formal recognition, it was sovereign in all aspects. --23prootiecute(talk) 19:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Sovereign in all aspects except that the USA could call Filipinos to serve in its own military, and the Philippines could not pass legislation forbidding Americans from establishing military bases. So... not quite fully sovereign. Binksternet (talk) 19:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

How about in Palau, Marshall Islands, and Federated States of Micronesia, they don't seem sovereign, are they?--23prootiecute(talk) 19:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

No, they don't seem so. Binksternet (talk) 23:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring

I have reported you for edit-warring at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring Nick-D (talk) 07:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

For the benefit of the reviewing admin, the exact address of the edit warring report is at: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#23prootie reported by Nick-D (Result: blocked by User:YellowMonkey ). Nick-D (talk) 07:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring and adding unsourced claims

Please stop your endless edit-warring in the Allies of World War II article and stop adding uncited claims to the List of sovereign states articles - these are indistinguishable from vandalism. You have already been blocked for this behaviour, and should expect further blocks if you continue it. Nick-D (talk) 07:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I've reported you for continued edit-warring at: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:23prootie reported by User:Nick-D (Result: ). We discussed the composition of the list previously in which you offered this [2] as a 'compromise' and I posted above that I agreed with it. Following this you went and re-added all the other non-independent countries. Nick-D (talk) 07:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Republic of Biak-na-Bato

Hello! Your submission of Republic of Biak-na-Bato at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!

Well, hello, sweetie, it seems to me that you have a problem with one of your nominees. It sure was lucky for me to be there. Anyway, I do hope that you have the time to address the problem cause I don't know if I could. You seem to have gotten yourself in a great deal of trouble these days. Well, you better watch yourself. Good luck.--Vanlla-C00kie (talk) 20:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor

Could you please provide a citation for your view that this transitional government was actually a 'country'. Nick-D (talk) 07:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Um how about the Montevideo Convention: people, territory, government, capacity to enter international relations, ala Kosovo today. Also I just re-added that category, it was there from the beginning--23prootiecute

List of populist parties

I come here to warn you that the List of populist parties articles is being argued for discussion, so I come here to request you to argue for its mantainace and development at here. Lususromulus (talk) 19:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Hi

Bring it up on the talk page; you'll need a strong consensus of the editors of that article to make the move. Once that has been formed, and you can clearly demonstrate that fact, place an {{editprotected}} notice on the article's talk page. I cannot and will not unilaterally make any such move myself, nor do I have any interest in getting involved in that. On an unrelated note, could you please check the "Raw signature" box in your preferences? What you have now is a bit of a code explosion. Thanks. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Treaty of Amity and Cooperation

Hi -- I was glad to see you significantly expanded the article on the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation so soon after I created it :-) But I don't understand why you moved it to "ASEAN Treaty of Amity and Cooperation". Your edit summary says "formal name", but all the official documents on the ASEAN web site (e.g. [3] and [4]) say "Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia" -- why is that not the formal name? And two minor points: I'd considered putting the five founding members into the table as you did now, which of course has advantages, but they didn't accede to the treaty, they concluded it, so the table heading isn't quite correct now. I don't know a word that covers both concluding a treaty and acceding to it, and "Date of Founding or Accession" would be lengthy and awkward -- I hadn't put the founding members into the table to avoid this problem, but perhaps we can find some solution for this. Also I put square brackets around the word "are" that you added in the UN quote, because it's not in the original text being quoted. Joriki (talk) 10:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi -- good to see you nominated the article for "Did you know" :-) I added two sentences about the High Council of the treaty and its role in the ASEAN Security Community, which should provide the missing 71 characters of prose. However, I'd like us to agree on the article's name before it gets put up on the main page. In addition to being used in the official documents on the ASEAN site, "Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia" has more than ten times as many Google hits as "ASEAN Treaty of Amity and Cooperation" (19400 vs. 1430). Unless you had a specific reason for taking the latter to be the formal name of the treaty, I think we should move the article back to the former. Joriki (talk) 03:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi -- I'm trying to coordinate with you here. I see you've made a lot of changes to the article since I contacted you about it. Please also take the time to reply to my concerns. Thanks. Joriki (talk) 16:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I googled it and Treaty of Amity and Cooperation is Southeast Asia gets 30,000 while ASEAN Treaty of Amity and Cooperation gets 37,000, besides that name is quite too long. The basic name is actually just Treaty of Amity and Cooperation but it has to be specified that it is affiliated with ASEAN. I know that the formal documents include "in Southeast Asia" but news sources such as the BBC usually omit that since it sometimes sound redundant. Fixed some concerns on the article, and I agree on the brackets--23prootie (talk) 16:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Your Google links don't have quotes around the search, so you're not counting the numbers of pages that contain that exact phrase. If I include the quotes, I get 810 hits for "ASEAN Treaty of Amity and Cooperation" and 20000 hits for "Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia" -- that's more than a factor of 10 in favour of the official title. I think that, together with the fact that this is the official title, is a strong argument for moving it back. I don't understand your argument about redundance; neither "in Southeast Asia" nor "ASEAN" adds any redundancy to the title "Treaty of Amity and Cooperation". There is no need to put the fact that it's affiliated with ASEAN in the title, but there is a need to differentiate the treaty from the "Treaty of Amity and Cooperation" mentioned in the article on the War of the Triple Alliance. Joriki (talk) 14:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi -- I've tried for a while now to discuss the name of the article on the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation with you. If I don't hear from you soon, I'll move the article back to "Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia", for the reasons given above. Joriki (talk) 16:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi -- thanks for your reply. I've moved the article back to the original, official title.

I noticed you put the WPCD template on its talk page, but it doesn't seem to be in the CD version; the link in the template doesn't work. Is there a reason for this? Joriki (talk) 12:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I've added it there so that it will be included in the next version of the CD, given that it is only a new article, it may yet t be included.--23prootie (talk) 23:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of ASEAN Treaty of Amity and Cooperation

Hello! Your submission of ASEAN Treaty of Amity and Cooperation at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Shubinator (talk) 01:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Malay

This doesn't make sense. Majapahit was not a ethnic Malay kingdom - it was Javanese. And the sentence that you changed refers to the notion of a "Malay Race", not Malay ethnic group. Could you please provide the text that supports the information. There is only one mention of the word "majapahit" in the text that you provided, but not in the context you have added in the article. Please clarify, or the info should be removed. thanks --Merbabu (talk) 09:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• I'm removing Majapahit despite it being the obvious successor of Sriviaya. On the context of the Malay race, I think the section "Malayness" explains that the term is beyond European colonization.--23prootie (talk) 09:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

So you added unreferenced material. When it was thus removed, you re-added it with a reference that didn't support the material? Although, at least you removed the incorrect information. That's something. Could you provide specifically which section you have used? thanks--Merbabu (talk) 11:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Letter of condolence to Pia Magalona from the Filipino Wikipedia community

Hi. Considering your level of interest in Francis Magalona, I thought I'd call your attention to Wikipedia_talk:Tambayan_Philippines#Letter_of_condolence_to_Pia_Magalona_from_the_Filipino_Wikipedia_community. Regards. -- Alternativity (talk) 09:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

March 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Portal:Current_events/2009_March_12, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Tomdobb (talk) 17:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Alexis Grace (American Idol)

This has been deleted. The article was deleted following a deletion discussion. Please do not restore this material again Fritzpoll (talk) 17:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you create an inappropriate page, such as Alexis Grace, you will be blocked from editing. You have been previously warned about this - reintroduce this material and you will be blocked Fritzpoll (talk) 19:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jorge Nuñez (singer)

Regarding your comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jorge Nuñez (singer): Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.Gazimoff 13:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)