Hello, Lambanog! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place ((helpme)) on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Wikipedia you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! Välkommen (talk) 20:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

You are invited to join the discussion here.--JL 09 _^q?c 10:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Joseph Estrada. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.--Eaglestorm (talk) 11:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Joseph Estrada, you will be blocked for vandalism. –Howard the Duck 13:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did to Talk:Joseph Estrada, you will be blocked from editing. You must read WT:PINOY's discussion first. JL 09 _^q?c 14:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Talk:Joseph Estrada. 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 several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. --Eaglestorm (talk) 18:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you have posted comments to the page Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines in a language other than English. When on the English-language Wikipedia, please always use English, no matter to whom you address your comments. This is so that comments may be comprehensible to the community at large. If the use of another language is unavoidable, please provide a translation of the comments. For more details, see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thank you. --Eaglestorm (talk) 05:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 23:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article Siling labuyo has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

PROD: The article shows the Filipino term for Thai pepper, and that it features on how it is used in Filipino cuisine.

If not PROD: I suggest merging it with Thai pepper creating a section showing on how it is used in Filipino cuisine. Anyhow, Siling labuyo and Thai pepper have the same biological make-up, same taste, etc.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((dated prod)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing ((dated prod)) will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JL 09 _^q?c 03:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Siling labuyo, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siling labuyo. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. JL 09 _^q?c 12:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 10:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 17:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at Germany's or Mexico's history section its 4 times longer than ours (Philippines) yet they have lesser content, while ours is just subdivided into 4 epochs small but still packed with content. Still condensed and summarized. we don't need to shorten it, just condense it and correct grammar or spelling errors

Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 12:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I was just about to comment on your page regarding differences in our edits as well! I haven't read the articles on Germany and Mexico yet but if they are featured articles they are probably doing something right so I'll take a look and see if their approach is applicable to the Philippines article.

I'd just like to address a couple of concerns you raised according to edits I made on the Philippines article. I recognize that capitalizing section headings is common but the Wikipedia Manual of Style states that the preferred form to use for section headers on the site is to treat them like sentences using sentence style capitalization. Please see here. Also all (or at least most) of the other section headings in the article and similar articles follow this prescribed format so it would be inconsistent to do the other way.

I added the dubious tag on the phrase regarding datus, rajahs, sultans because the paragraph starts off with "At the dawn of the 1st Millennium C.E." yet Islam did not exist yet at that time. The term sultan as I understand it has religious connotations and I'm left wondering if that term was already in use before the advent of Islam. Does the book you cite address this issue? The sultan reference I think needs further discussion or perhaps a rephrasing to work around the issue.

So that everyone may benefit from discussion such as this I suggest that in the future we post comments on edits on the article talk page. If you have no comment or do not have a problem with it I will change the headings back after a day. Thank you. —Lambanog (talk) 12:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok, I understand now. If Wikipedia's Manual of style requires that that the format be in that structure then it should be small caps. I just edited that into capitalized letters because that's the norm. Also, Islam already existed "At the dawn of the 1st Millennium C.E." since according to the article Islam the 1st Islamic states had been established in 632–750 C.E. in Saudi Arabia. It even predates the Classical Period of Philippine History by two centuries. Hence although the Sultanate of Sulu and Maguindanao wasn't established until the 1200s. Muslims have been in the archipelago before that. But in retrospect, I think is should rewrite the sentence to better get the gist of my idea what I really meant is that "In the early years of the 1st millennium there were several states either ruled by Datus, Rajahs and Sultans." Thank You for your vigilance. Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 13:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 17:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Filipino food has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. JL 09 _^q?c 17:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Doreen Fernandez requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

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 page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. JL 09 _^q?c 17:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 03:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is re this complaint about disruptive edits to the nascent Sovereignty of the Philippines article.

You're right in your latest comments in response to that complaint that I should have discussed this with you here before opening the complaint. I'm not normally a very contentious editor I'm rarely involved in serious disputes, and WP:dispute resolution is not something I spend a lot of time at. The discussion we've had on the complaint page should have taken place here. let's continue it here.

Straight out, it seems to me that you are the one with POV issues, not me. I just want to get an article in place giving details of this topic which can be referenced by wikilink. I don't think this is the place to discuss article content, though, except as it relates to your disruptive edits.

Some bullet points from WP:TE#Characteristics of problem editors -- my comments in green:

-- my responses in blue:

Bullet points from WP:DE#Signs of disruptive editing -- my comments in green:

Discussion on the article talk page appears to be moving in the direction of consensus to move the article to another name, and probably to restructure it. That's fine with me, and I will participate in attempting to arrive at a consensus about specifically how to address the need for an article addressing the details of the independence status of various unsuccessful insurgent movements in the Philippine (questions about which and impacting various other articles relating to the Philippines come up over and over again) within the context of a larger topic which includes those details.

I have withdrawn my disruptive editing complaint prior to its evaluation, and I'm OK with letting the matter go. I urge you, however, to look at and think about the green bits above. You may not agree that I'm on target with all of it, but there is food for thought there. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you saw the wisdom of my advice even if only on this matter. — Lambanog (talk) 13:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 03:18, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added such as to the page Filipino cuisine do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used as a platform for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. [1] [2] --Ronz (talk) 00:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you recently added ((PD-Philippines)) to a large number of images related to the Filipino presidency. Do you have any basis for the claim that these images are in the public domain? The source information doesn't seem to support that. (ESkog)^(Talk) 16:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those portrayed died before 1959 and of those that did not, their presidencies came before then. In any event I seem to recall seeing them on a webpage www.pangulo.ph which now seems to be defunct. I was referred to the website by someone working in the government and was told it was operated by Manuel Quezon III, grandson of the second president who is also a historian and columnist in a newspaper of record in the Philippines. Manuel Quezon III also has a flickr account which he seems to have some copyrights to some images but unless I'm mistaken these don't appear among them. I also seem to recall seeing some of these images in a museum or book. I think these are government pictures and with 50 years having passed the non-commercial and permission restriction the Philippine government nominally attaches but doesn't enforce anyway lapses in any event. Lambanog (talk) 16:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Request for clarification: consensus and insertion of information on Philippines and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requesting Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks,--JL 09 _^q?c 14:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC re: a 'Motion to close', which would dissolve Cda as a proposal. The motion includes an !vote. You have previously commented at this page. Jusdafax 07:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In good faith I recently proposed to build a new consensus on the fourth paragraph of the History Section of the Philippines article [3] based on the previous consensus version [4] which many editors had worked on for some time. I recently explained the motivations of this previous version and how it came to be [5]. My proposal was a sincere offer to build a new consensus with everybody's opinions and contributions. However, you and Gubernatoria keep reverting this consensus without any justification except your own convictions, and ironically, accuse me of edit warring.

This is a new appeal for consensus-building and a constructive approach by all. Let us start from that previous version and please do not revert the text again. JCRB (talk) 13:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lol you reverted an edition we discussed in the Discussion forum. I want to know why. Did I do some mistake or did a historical inaccuracy? On this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philippines&oldid=335243833.

As far as I know, I based all my conclusions on cited books and internet sources. If I did any mistake please let me know. Thank You. Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 16:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are introducing a lot of stuff. It's not wrong, but it diverges materially from I'm trying to do. My goal is to get the Philippines article to GA status maybe even FA. Looking at the criteria, I have to say your edits complicate things. Past GA reviews have noted extensive copyediting as needed and a lot of work on the sourcing of information and consistent citation. If you look at my edits this past month you will notice I have put a lot of time into improving the citations. If you look at the country article for Switzerland for example you will notice how bad citations affect the evaluation. It is a well written article using fluid English, until recently much better English than seen in the Philippines article, but its Achilles heel is the citations. Your additions among other things require better citations that are consistently formatted, better choice of language so as to not raise POV concerns, and a more selective approach of what to include since they add to the length of the article and length has been raised as a major issue. As I've said before more is not necessarily better. I think there is already sufficient information (raw material) to work with for the most part in the history section to get the Philippines to GA status. What needs work is the presentation and the copyediting. This is my personal opinion. You may disagree. If so, my apologies. It's just that I'm not inclined to attempt integrating large amounts of new material into the article. It's too much work for something I don't have complete confidence in. We tried it before and it was simply reverted. I hope you understand.

By the way, I don't intend to revert as much as it's necessary if I'm going to be working on the version I want to be working on and still getting other eyes to look at it and possibly improve it. I'm do not intend to revert simply for the sake of reverting. But if I have an addition to the article version I want to make, then I add it. I personally wouldn't mind if you did that too with the version you prefer. That's what I meant in the proposal I made. What is likely to happen though is that others may step in to select their preferred version, or see an edit war, although that would not be my intention if the agreement holds. That is how others might see it, however, and it is the inherent method of checks and balances and natural selection in the Wikipedia process. I'll try to remember to add a "not meant as revert" (NotRVT) note to my edit summaries in the future to hopefully clarify the matter but we're in virgin territory here and I'm not sure Wikipedia rules account for this. That's why you should take into consideration that what you are adding is likely to find support regardless or be willing to live with whatever is the outcome. Regards. Lambanog (talk) 06:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to get too off topic on Julian's RFB. Of course I would feel differently if it was as you described. You should be aware that some people find comparisons of sexism or racism to "ageism" to actually be offensive. It does suggest somewhat limited empathy for different genders/races and a poor grasp of the concept of time. --JayHenry (talk) 16:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Empathy can work both ways and also be showed to Julian. Friday seems to have made a general putdown on the basis of age not sex, but a putdown nonetheless. 200 years ago a 13 year old may have been considered an adult and a woman a mere woman. I can respect that ageism can be seen as different from sexism but there are parallels and in the context of the Friday incident at least I think they may apply. Lambanog (talk) 05:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, I have a great deal of empathy for Julian. Like all people in their 20s, I used to be 16 myself (as did Friday). I look forward to one day being in my 30s and the next decade and the next, and looking back fondly on the things I don't know now but will then. I'm sure in my 30s it will be more obvious to me why a twenty-something cannot be, say, a US Senator. But this is why the analogy between ageism and sexism fails and is irrelevant. I was never a woman, nor will time make me one. --JayHenry (talk) 06:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what you are trying to do with the addition of a References section, but the addition broke the testcases page. If you want a references section for the documentation examples, you should edit the documentation page, not the template itself. — John Cardinal (talk) 15:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I did something wrong it's probably because I do not understand what the sandbox is for. What is it for? I assumed it was for testing and to test a citation one needs to see it in a reference section at least that was what I was thinking at the time. If that is an incorrect use for the sandbox then its correct use should be made clear. There is no documentation for it as far I know. Lambanog (talk) 18:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Template:Cite web/sandbox page is for testing changes to the ((Cite web)) template, not for testing usage of ((Cite web)). To test a citation, you can use the Preview button when editing an article. You can also use the general sandbox at Wikipedia:Sandbox. — John Cardinal (talk) 19:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please because its already edited.

Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 13:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My Reply to your discussions expansion: When deliberations go to a voting I assure, you have my vote just as long as my editions get into your version, *wink2x . Although I think that my editions should be in there but you can do with it in whatever fashion you like, minimalize it or whatever but you "Must" include the Negritos, the prince who spread islam and the causes of the Revolution because those things are sooo vital. I can't beleive they arent even mentioned in the lead section and history subsections of this ucrrent edition which in all respects is outdated.

Turly Yours Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk)(talk) 02:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to respectfully disagree with characterizing their inclusion in the lead as must. Negritos constitute less than 1% of the population but with the length of time they were on the islands I guess I can see why they could be included. What complicates it though is the group of pre-Mongoloid people Tabon Man is part of. They were not Negritos and it is unclear from sources what happened to them. Saying that Negritos were the indigenous people conflicts with the presence of Tabon Man who were specifically stated in sources as NOT being related to Negritos. One could say "aboriginal peoples", although that term is not that common in the local setting, or maybe "early settlers". However, I think it is simpler to leave them out of the lead entirely and give the explanation in the body of the article. But maybe I can reword it a little. As for Islam, it is already mentioned in the lead. The name of the prince might belong in the body of the article but not the lead. One could argue for example that Legazpi is a bigger influence. In truth I am not too big a fan of the prominence being given to history in the article. It already dominates the lead, has a significant section on its own, and plays a role in the culture sections. All the rancor over it detracts from the general improvement of the article. I'm more interested in improving the language and formatting. If removing the history section outright were possible I imagine 80% of the edit conflicts would disappear. I've probably spent as much time explaining myself in posts like this one then actually editing the article. Lambanog (talk) 03:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re this edit of mine, neither of the VFAs support this. The Mutual Defense Treaty doesn't support it directly either, but it can be construed to do so under article 2. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I'm basically working with the material that was there. I modified the statement with the Australian agreement a little earlier because of similar issues but I guess missed that one. Many other errors or dubious statements in that section. Lambanog (talk) 13:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I do not think that the exclusion of Urduja and Kalantiaw would be helpful in the article Philippines and I believe that a rather negative fallout might occur due to the political sensitivity of these topics. I suggest that they be included with the specification that these are "oral histories that cannot be proven nor disproved in the present". As we know, the Laguna Copperplate Inscription has help erase doubts, as well as create new ones, about the pre-Hispanics history of the Philippines. It has been a great tool to challenge the Western biases on our culture and history which includes the classification of the Kalantiao folk belief as a (insulting) "hoax". I believe the article should be open on the oral histories of various ethnic groups since we do not have any other sources of histories for any of them.--ᜊᜓᜑᜌ᜔ᜆ᜖ (talk) 00:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I wanted to edit but unfortunately new users can't so sorry to bother you.--ᜊᜓᜑᜌ᜔ᜆ᜖ (talk) 00:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
when I just habitually clicked on your contributions, I happened to see the template shortcut links you created, T:cite paper, T:cite news, T:cite web, and T:cite book, following the recommendation at WP:VPR#Make "T:" a shortcut to refer to templates. You got, in my opinion, rather bad advice there, since as long as T: is no proper namespace alias, those shortcuts are actually residing in normal article space (mainspace), i.e. cross-namespace redirects. That has a number of undesirable side effects, which are detailed at WP:XNR. Since those pages aren't used yet, could I convince you that we can delete them again? Although the respective speedy deletion criterion WP:CSD#R2 exempts redirects to template space, for historical reason, the intention is actually to keep mainspace clean of them, and newly created redirects of that kind are usually deleted at WP:RfD,.
I'm not sure why you find them useful, but maybe there are other ways this can be accomplished.
Amalthea 19:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In absence of a reply, I've nominated them for deletion. Amalthea 22:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that this section is only registering with me right now. Lambanog (talk) 14:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I notice that you are rather annoyed by this issue. Please understand that my sole intent is to make Wikipedia the most useful for our readers, and that I believe a clean separation of content and editorial tools is an important part of that. Comfort of editors is of course important as well, and I do try to help out there (e.g. by helping maintain various user scripts and templates). In this case there are just a number of alternatives that don't have any drawbacks and appear to me just as easy to use. One such alternative I hadn't mentioned yet is adding a bit of javascript to your monobook.js which will add links to the citation templates to your toolbox, e.g.

addPortletLink('p-tb', 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Cite_news', 'T:Cite news', 't-cite-news', 'Template:Cite news', '', '');

Kind regards, Amalthea 14:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This issue, not so much. The deletion process, yes. Simply put as far as I can tell there is no reason for the redirect to be deleted in the manner it was. If there is a consensus it is to keep. WP:CNR which you yourself cite explicitly states what the consensus is. In any event I assume good faith on your part and am willing to work with you. I do not, however, with all parties involved. The process if working as advertised should have been able to deal with my concerns properly. It did not and thus exposes bigger more fundamental problems than the immediate one involving CNRs. Thank you for the toolbox script. Regards. Lambanog (talk) 16:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • Hey, only the Code of Kalantiaw was "proven" as a host. The Madyaas Confederacy were still considered as "history" since the hoax ek ek only revolved around Kalantiao so it must be listed.--ᜊᜓᜑᜌ᜔ᜆ᜖ (talk) 23:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Confederacy of Madyaas even if proven beyond all doubt is optional in my opinion. With the unresolved questions surrounding the principal source documenting it, it shouldn't be mentioned at all unless an alternate verifiable reputable source documenting it exists or is found. Lambanog (talk) 01:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.

A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;

• gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and

• ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are receiving this message as you have voted in VOTE 3 at the Community de-Adminship 'Proposal Finalization' Poll.

It has been pointed out that VOTE 3 was confusing, and that voters have been assuming that the question was about creating an actual two-phase CDA process. The question is merely about having a two-phase poll on CDA at the eventual RfC, where the community will have their vote (eg a "yes/no for CDA” poll, followed a choice of proposal types perhaps).

As I wrote the question, I'll take responsibility for the confusion. It does make sense if read through to the end, but it certainly wasn't as clear as it should have been, or needed to be!

Please amend your vote if appropriate - it seems that many (if not most) people interpreted the question in the way that was not intended.

Regards, Matt Lewis (talk) 16:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Siling mahaba, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siling mahaba. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. JL 09 ^_q?c 14:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found the relevant RfD and review on these, and I was curious if you've ever tried turning on the "reftools" option under your preferences. Having a ((cite)) button on the editing toolbar has been a godsend for me, and I thought it might address the concerns that led you to create these shortcuts in the first place.--otherlleft 15:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you left me a question about this very RfD. I found it while looking at another RfA, which is why I asked you that question here. I will answer your question in the appropriate place.--otherlleft 15:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your oppose notwithstanding, I'm still curious if you've tried the reftools feature. I think it would address your entirely legitimate concerns, and unless something surprising happens at deletion review it may be your best bet.--otherlleft 13:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried the reftools feature before. I didn't end up using it. The reason I created the shortcuts to the cite pages was for the documentation so I could quickly compare the output of various switches by looking at their examples and determine which to use. The reftools feature I don't think helps with that. By the way, I'm sorry for the oppose. If it wasn't for my recent bad experience I would actually be more inclined to support, but the criteria I devised were fairly clear and I had resolved to apply it. The timing of your nomination was a bit unfortunate in that regard. It looks like you'll probably still pass the RfA but if not I am willing to say my criteria are such that I would apply them less strictly the second time around all other things being equal. Good luck. Lambanog (talk) 14:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I understand why reftools doesn't suit your needs. It was worth a shot to ask, though. As for the oppose, no worries there - I gave your follow-up answer a lot of thought, and knew it would probably resulting in your opposing. Whether I'm accepted or not, the opposes are going to inform how I edit going forward. I appreciate your candidness, and hope you participate in many more RfAs.--otherlleft 15:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to weigh in on my RfA. It was successful, in that the community's wish not to grant me the tools at this time was honored. I'm taking all the comments as constructive feedback and hope to become more valuable to the project as a result; I've also discovered several new areas in which to work. Because debating the merits of a candidate can be taxing on the heart and brain, I offer this kitten as a low-allergen, low-stress token of my appreciation. --otherlleft 13:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kitten. I'm conflicted about whether to reveal I'm allergic or not but in this case I get the feeling it wouldn't really matter and it probably doesn't hurt to accept. Lambanog (talk) 11:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to personally thank you for taking part in my RfA. Although I disagree with your oppose (obviously!), I admire the fact that you "stuck to your guns". When you placed your oppose, there were 23 supports and 1 neutral - it shows an integrity of character to oppose in that situation.

I saw your addendum to your oppose, but as it was added after the official end of the RfA, it did not seem to make sense to answer it, as by the time I had replied, the RfA could have been closed - I didn't realise how long it would be until a bureaucrat was able to close it!

I hope that my actions as an administrator will show you that the trust of the community is warranted - and if you do ever see an action I perform which you think is questionable, please feel free to contact me on my talk page. I know that as admin, I will mistakes - it's part of being human! - but if I do make a mistake, I would like to think that this will be pointed out to me so that I can rectify it (or so that I can explain my action if I believe that it is not in fact a mistake!) -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sticking to my guns? Kind of you to say. Stubborn obliviousness also fits.... It was obvious you were going to pass but I asked that last bit to give you a chance to make the candidacy spotless. Too bad time ran out. Congratulations with the mop and bucket! Lambanog (talk) 11:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for commenting at WP:NPOV/N. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 18:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lambanog - Thanks for your participation and support in my recent successful RfA. Your confidence and trust in me is much appreciated. As a new admin I will try hard to keep from wading in too deep over the tops of my waders, nor shall I let the Buffalo intimidate me.--Mike Cline (talk) 09:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lambanog,

you are receiving this message as you voted in VOTE 2 at the recent Community de-Adminship 'Proposal Finalization' Poll. Unfortunately, there is a hitch regarding the "none" vote that can theoretically affect all votes.

1) Background of VOTE 2:

In a working example of CDA; ater the 'discussion and polling phase' is over, if the "rule of thumb" baseline percentage for Support votes has been reached, the bureaucrats can start to decide whether to desysop an admin, based in part on the evidence of the prior debate. This 'baseline' has now been slightly-adjusted to 65% (from 70%) per VOTE 1. VOTE 2 was asking if there is a ballpark area where the community consensus is so strong, that the bureaucrats should consider desysopping 'automatically'. This 'threshold' was set at 80%, and could change pending agreement on the VOTE 2 results.

This was VOTE 2;

Do you prefer a 'desysop threshold' of 80% or 90%, or having none at all?

As a "rule of thumb", the Bureaucrats will automatically de-sysop the Administrator standing under CDA if the percentage reaches this 'threshold'. Currently it is 80% (per proposal 5.4).

Please vote "80" or "90", or "None", giving a second preference if you have one.

This is the VOTE 2 question without any ambiguity;

Do you prefer a "rule of thumb" 'auto-desysop' percentage of 80%, 90%, or "none"?

Where "none" means that there is no need for a point where the bureaucrats can automatically desysop.

Please vote "80" or "90", or "None", giving a second preference if you have one.

2) What was wrong with VOTE 2?

Since the poll, it has been suggested that ambiguity in the term "none at all" could have affected some of the votes. Consequently there has been no consensus over what percentage to settle on, or how to create a new compromise percentage. The poll results are summarised here.

3) How to help:

Directly below this querying message, please can you;

• Clarify what you meant if you voted "none".

• In cases where the question was genuinely misunderstood, change your initial vote if you wish to (please explain the ambiguity, and don't forget to leave a second choice if you have one).

• Please do nothing if you interpreted the question correctly (or just confirm this if you wish), as this query cannot be a new vote.

I realise that many of you clarified your meaning after your initial vote, but the only realistic way to move forward is to be as inclusive as possible in this vote query. Sorry for the inconvenience,

Matt Lewis (talk) 14:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For a rule of thumb automatic desysop threshold I voted "80". I could go as low as 66 if that was given as an option. Since it wasn't I voted as secondary choice "none". I would also be open to a discretionary desysop as low as 51. This may be vastly different from how others interpret a choice of "none". It's possible others interpreting the question as follows: even with 90% against there would be no automatic rule of thumb to encourage the bureaucrat to desysop. There is a common sense protection in that scenario though since such an overwhelming sentiment to desysop would likely compel at least one of the bureaucrats to step in or undermine the legitimacy of the entire system admin/bureaucratic system. Lambanog (talk) 05:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had originally put this statement on the "discussion" section of the RfA, but I feel that it would be more appropriate here (although I have slightly reworded it, to both make more sense on this page and to sound a bit less rude, which was not my intention!)

I understand that you are disappointed in the result of the RfD and DRV. However, I would suggest that you accept that your Redirect was deleted and that at the review this decision was upheld. Almost every admin candidate that you have asked to comment on this has said that as an editor they might have !voted keep at the RfD, but that as an admin they would have deleted it.

And before you use your analogy that you used on my RfA that you want a doctor who has experience as a patient, I don't think that is a good analogy. Unless you are saying, of course, that if you were to need to have a leg amputated, you would only want to be operated on by an amputee? Or that if you were to be treated for terminal cancer, that you would only want to be treated by a doctor with terminal cancer? When I sign up to a doctor, I don't care if they've ever been ill, or had an operation, or anything like that - I just want to know that they are registered with the British Medical Council, and that they have experience as a doctor.

I might be wrong, of course - perhaps when you register with a new doctor, before you join their practise, you ask the doctor what experience they have had as a patient, and then refuse to have them as your doctor if you are not happy with their answer. If this is the case, then your analogy would be apt - but I do not know anyone who would set this as a standard for their doctor - and let's be honest, your doctor is an important person: admins here are not, they are just maintenance workers.

Anyway, as I said, I thought this would be better on your talk page than on the RfA, as it's more a matter between two editors than a more public one!

Incidently, I gave a link to the DRV discussion after your question. If you want the candidate to evaluate the RfD, then I feel that the DRV should be evaluated - if the candidate agrees with you that the RfD result was incorrect, they will also agree that the DRV result was incorrect; if they think that the RfD result was the correct one, then the DRV isn't likely to change their mind from that!

Regards, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Believe it or not the issue regarding the shortcut redirect is not that big a deal for me. What does concern me is the XfD process. Simply put it does not work as advertised. The case I present as an example I feel is pretty clear-cut. It can be answered simply in a way that allows me to ignore it or it can be answered in detail and is a a good test for investigative prowess. So far no one has answered it in a way that even touches on 50% of the issues involved. Perhaps if someone should do so you'll better appreciate it. That you do not seem to at present I suspect is because of your lack of experience in the area my first question is directed towards. On the matter of doctors, from what I recall the practice of dressing them up as patients has been included in some curricula. If you haven't seen it yet may I suggest watching the television movie Wit starring Emma Thompson and directed by Mike Nichols? Regards. Lambanog (talk) 13:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A fair point, and I look forward to seeing a candidate answer it in a way which you think touches on the issues you expect to see - I'd appreciate it if you would let me know if this is the case (unless you make it obvious on the RfA with a comment like "That's exactly what I was looking for"!) Regarding 'Wit', I haven't seen it, but I am aware of it - isn't the point it makes about the doctors treating her that they see her more as a test-bed for their treatments rather than as a person with needs and emotions? I don't think I've noticed it being shown on TV here, but it is one which I do want to see sometime! Regards, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, re your comment in peer review, could I just check with you whether you felt there was too much active voice near the beginning of the article, or not enough in the rest of it? --JN466 15:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I got the impression there was a little too much and the article became somewhat terse to read early on. Still it should be kept in mind that active voice is usually a good thing so if you do make edits addressing this concern, be sparing and judicious. If you personally don't have a problem with the current wording then there's no compelling need to change it. I only make the observation because you say you plan on possibly taking it to FA and reviewers there will likely be more critical. Lambanog (talk) 15:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. Ruth and I had rewritten the beginning of the article a week ago to make the verb structures a bit simpler; hence the change in style. --JN466 16:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - just wanted to say that I think you are perfectly reasonable in your comments on King's RFA, and that it seems now that you're being unnecessarily attacked. I didn't think literring that RFA with _more_ arguments would be helpful, so just wanted to offer moral support here - though I will be willing to say the same on the RFA if you think it would be helpful. Luminifer (talk) 08:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the words of support. I don't think adding your voice to mine is necessary though. We arrived at our conclusion about the candidate through independent non-related means. They are stronger for it. I'm confident anyone willing to judge my opinion without bias will conclude that it is considered and can stand on the strength of its arguments. Thank you again. Lambanog (talk) 11:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC on the Community de-Adminship proposal was started on the 22nd Feb, and it runs for 28 days. Please note that the existing CDA proposal was (in the end) run as something of a working compromise, so CDA is still largely being floated as an idea.

Also note that, although the RfC is in 'poll format' (Support, Oppose, and Neutral, with Comments underneath), this RfC is still essentially a 'Request for Comment'. Currently, similar comments on CDA's value are being made under all three polls.

Whatever you vote, your vote is welcome!

Regards, Matt Lewis (talk) 10:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there Lambanog, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot alerting you that Non-free files are not allowed in the user or talk-space. I removed some files that I found on User:Lambanog/Sandbox3. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.

• See a log of files removed today here.

• Shut off the bot here.

• Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 00:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, if you are reviewing this, please add the under review tag on the GAn page. Cheers. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 20:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I'm currently not doing so therefore I have not added the review tag. Lambanog (talk) 02:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my birthday. Adabow (talk) 04:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one that started the reverting battle, and now framed me? That's low and dirty. My addition on the article is well referenced. Let's discuss in Manila's discussion, this is not over (Gunkarta (talk) 16:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)).[reply]

I have commented on and tried to address each of your concerns. Could you take another look? Thanks. :) --mav (reviews needed) 16:57, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. You can email me if you like, comment on my talk page or leave comments on the FAR page. Whatever method works best for you. --mav (reviews needed) 20:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sometime this week, could you see if your "hold" still needs to be held? :) --mav (reviews needed) 02:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article has improved a lot since you placed your hold. Please take a look to see if the article can be kept or if it needs more work. Thanks. --mav (reviews needed) 03:38, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad to announce to you that we will be debuting as an organization at the Philippine Youth Congress in Information Technology on September 14 to 17, 2010 at the University of the Philippines, Diliman. Jojit will be Wikimedia Philippines resource speaker at the second day of the conference at the UP Film Center. He will be speaking about Wikipedia and how it revolutionizes the World Wide Web. That will be at 9:00 to 10:00 am. We will also set up a booth at the UP Bahay ng Alumni and we will showcase our existing and future projects. We encourage you to participate in our first major project. We have prepared food and refreshments for you. Please let us know so that we can enlist you to our delegation.--Exec8 (talk) 15:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Manila hostage crisis. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 16:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What an awesome username.  :)

- Alvincura (talk) 17:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lambanog. Thanks very much for the The Premium Reviewer's Barnstar, I've only just noticed it, but it is much appreciated. Pyrotec (talk) 07:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you aren't offended by my reminding you to please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. It's best to be polite, closely follow talk page guidelines, and keep a cool head even if you think others are not. [6] [7] --Ronz (talk) 17:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but the pattern of your edits can leave the purpose of them easily misconstrued. To avoid this would you be willing to have the dispute mediated? Lambanog (talk) 17:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation is unsuitable for such disputes, as explained at WP:Mediation. --Ronz (talk) 17:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An WP:RFC would be a good next step on the content dispute. --Ronz (talk) 17:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed your request from WP:3O. I'm very confused as to why you could think it could possibly apply in a situation where multiple editors are involved and multiple other venues have already been used for discussion. --Ronz (talk) 22:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the comments I made above from the talk page where you copied them. I've left yours without context rather than remove it as well. The article talk page is no place for such discussions, as I noted above. --Ronz (talk) 22:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove your comment [8]. If you want to discuss such topics, do so at ANI or another forum. --Ronz (talk) 21:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for at least copying it to ANI.

Could you please remove, "As for Ronz's edit history, it is what it is. WP:AGF asks all editors to extend good faith, but not to be deaf, dumb, and blind in the face of contrary evidence." [9] from the article talk page? Move it to ANI if you like. --Ronz (talk) 00:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank you. PhilKnight (talk) 02:50, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded at ANI, which is where you should be discussing such matters. --Ronz (talk) 16:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your looking to end this dispute about behavior. It will make it much easier to settle the content dispute. --Ronz (talk) 17:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At the ANI that you started I've requested that you remove your improper comments from the article talk page, or allow me to do so. I'll be doing so if you don't respond.

I also noted your canvassing for help. --Ronz (talk) 15:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and removed the improper comments. I hope we this will be the end of it and we can move on from here. --Ronz (talk) 03:34, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, you're frustrated with the situation. However, please follow WP:DR, rather than make comments like [10] --Ronz (talk) 00:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not assume ownership of articles. If you aren't willing to allow your contributions to be edited extensively or be redistributed by others, please do not submit them. Thank you. [11] [12] [13] --Ronz (talk) 17:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[14] --Ronz (talk) 14:47, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Lambanog. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elen of the Roads.
Message added 22:47, 22 October 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Just to let you know I have seen your feedback and commented. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:47, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lambanog, I hope you will support these moves. Thanks

1. Talk:Baguio_City#Requested_move
2. Talk:Tacloban_City#Requested_move
3. Talk:Kabankalan_City#Requested_move
4. Talk:Tagbilaran_City#Requested_move
5. Talk:Science City of Muñoz#Requested_move
6. Talk:Naga City#Requested_move
7. Talk:Bacolod City#Requested_move
8. Talk:Valencia City, Bukidnon#Requested_move
9. Talk:San Fernando City, Pampanga#Requested_move
10. Talk:Lucena City#Requested_move
11. Talk:Alaminos City#Requested_move --JinJian (talk) 07:53, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lambanog, I have cited your endorsement in Talk:Science City of Muñoz#Requested_move, Talk:Valencia_City,_Bukidnon#Requested_move, Talk:San_Fernando_City,_Pampanga#Requested_move, Talk:Alaminos_City#Requested_move to second the motions; and Talk:Lucena City#Requested_move since there is an opposition. I will also be citing your endorsement on others if needed. Thanks for your support. --JinJian (talk) 03:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine to me, just keep me informed as you have in the above post when you use my endorsement, thanks. Lambanog (talk) 04:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I will inform you. The cities listed in just recently added Talk:Calamba_City#Requested_move were not included in the initial list of proposed move ; they should have been included in the list on Talk:Naga_City#Requested_move. Technically your endorsement did not include the move for the cities listed in Talk:Calamba_City#Requested_move. Since you have supported the same reasoning, may I request you to second Talk:Calamba_City#Requested_move too. Thanks. --JinJian (talk) 14:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Please pardon the intrusion. This tin of thanks spam is offered to everyone who commented or !voted (Support, Oppose or Neutral) on my recent RfA. I appreciate the fact that you care enough about the encyclopedia and its community to participate in this forum.
• There are a host of processes that further need community support, including content review (WP:GAN, WP:PR, WP:FAC, and WP:FAR). You can also consider becoming a Wikipedia Ambassador. If you have the requisite experience and knowledge, consider running for admin yourself!
• If you have any further comments, input or questions, please do feel free to drop a line to me on my talk page. I am open to all discussion. Thanks • Ling.Nut (talk) 02:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please justify. --Truflip99 (talk) 06:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

refer to the discussion page. --Truflip99 (talk) 06:53, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've researched online regarding that issue and I stick to my conclusion. However, if the "arrive to" was your only beef, then what drives you to undo the rest of the edits? --Truflip99 (talk) 14:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I've addressed that on my post in the article's talk page. Some of it I'm on the fence with but do not find any of the additions particularly compelling and separating the acceptable parts with the unacceptable parts is not worth the trouble if you do not recognize and accept there are obvious errors being introduced with the version you prefer that were not there earlier. I did modify one passage from the earlier version, however, because your edit highlighted an error. As stated in the edit summary the version I restored is a version I prefer but I do not think it is ideal and can see obvious ways to improve it. It even has parts introduced by others I think are weak. Since this is a collaborative project, however, I understand it may develop in ways I do not particularly like and there is a need to compromise. But if you are going to improve it, make a defensible case that you're actually improving it. Introducing errors then insisting upon them doesn't help you make a convincing case. Lambanog (talk) 18:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, Please do not edit the Transfer of Operations subcategory on Manila Light Rail Transit System Page. Everything placed there is based on the current news on this topic. Jeromesandilanico (talk) 21:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm curious about this question: Agree or disagree: Wikipedia is a better reference than either Citizendium or Encyclopedia Britannica. Why? I see you've contributed occsionally to this discussion which is trying to make RfA a friendlier place to encourage more editors of the right calibre to come forward and run for office. One of the main reasons they are staying away is this. Please don't hesitate to voice your opinion on either page. Regards, --Kudpung (talk) 06:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the new "Health" section you added to Coconut oil because of copyright violations and NPOV/MEDRS problems discussed on the article talk page.

What version of the article is [15]? Is it where you find the info you added here? Turns out, it contains copyright violations, as well as problems discussed at length on the article talk page. Compare to [16] by Bruce Fife. --Ronz (talk) 20:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked for help at the Fringe Theories Noticeboard. --Ronz (talk) 20:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like your new solution. I'm not sure if the juxtaposition of sources in that manner is proper, but let's see what feedback we get. --Ronz (talk) 01:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on coconut oil. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

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. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.
I'm not sure if you're at 3 reverts in a 24 hour period, but you're pretty clearly edit warring against very obvious opposition. Please stop reverting to your preferred version, particularly when there is vocal opposition on the main page and on the talk page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your replies on talk:coconut oil and my apologies if I seemed unresponsive in the past - sometimes it takes a while to get to a common understanding of the policies and guidelines that inform editing. Please note that I am not opposed to virgin coconut oil being labelled as a healthier fat than lard or tallow if the sources support it, but at this point it seems obvious (to me at least) that there has been little research done on the topic in humans and thus we would be running ahead of the consensus if we were to edit the page to say this. Do you have an e-mail account attached to your wikipedia user ID? If so, could you e-mail me any electronic copies of the more difficult-to-find journal articles you may have? I'm not opposed to including good information from review articles, but it's very difficult to give an opinion on what to summarize and how without the actual source in front of me. Thanks, WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I don't have digital copies I'd be comfortable sending over the internet—possible copyright violations etc. I hope you understand. Maybe you could find one online or at least some abstracts or descriptions. If you are really interested, it should be possible to buy them online. Regards. Lambanog (talk) 17:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 17:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:Overtagging. Overtagging was given in the edit summary as a reason. The multiple issue banner at the top of the article was sufficient. Lambanog (talk) 17:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When you edit, it is helpful and courteous to leave slightly more descriptive notes than "edit."--Smokefoot (talk) 17:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. Sometimes when making a series of edits one gets carried away with adding to the article and neglects details in the summary. Is there an article in particular where my editing was less than transparent for you? Lambanog (talk) 17:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It happens to us all - getting lost in our editing, that it. The Wiki-chem world is relatively vigilant since many nutters, and many well meaning - usually environmental/nutritional/toxicology enthusiasts - make strange edits requiring repairs or removal because these editors often do not appreciate chemical context or WP:MEDRS. I am particularly leery of folks offering nutritional advice since few are qualified to do so and many spammers seek to promote weird stuff. So on the edit summary, it helps to see the point of the edits were. But it happens to us all. --Smokefoot (talk) 23:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another editing tip, rather than continuously making and reverting "preferred version" edits to coconut oil, could you perhaps simply work on a subpage instead, like User:Lambanog/Coconut oil? You would not have to keep reverting to a previous version and changing it, and you could present it to other editors for review and comment on the associated talk page. But mostly it means the servers aren't dealing with two edits every time you want to set up a mock-up of the page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Easier to reconcile differences this way and I think the version I think superior should be readily available to anyone else who agrees. Lambanog (talk) 18:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please leave the maintenance tags to identify problems and get others' help. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 19:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been going on for awhile already on Talk:Mary G. Enig. You are free to make improvements to the article yourself. I have offered to make improvements if they are identified with inline tags. Given both the foregoing, the banner serves no constructive purpose. If you feel the article's deficiencies are egregious enough I suggest you take this to another forum to get other people looking at it (which is your stated rationale for the banner), improve the article yourself, or stop adding the banner. I will consider further adding of the banner with no detailed explanation as disruptive and will remove it. Lambanog (talk) 00:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The banner is there to get others' help. --Ronz (talk) 01:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your editing is being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Editor_preventing_maintenance_tags_to_Mary_G._Enig. --Ronz (talk) 17:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. Continuing to remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia without resolving the problem that the template refers to may be considered disruptive editing. Further edits of this type may result in your being blocked from editing Wikipedia. [17] [18] --Ronz (talk) 17:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please focus on content? [19] --Ronz (talk) 05:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. [20] --Ronz (talk) 19:29, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning; the next time you make personal attacks on other people, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. [21] --Ronz (talk) 16:18, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you might be interested in helping expand and source Price-Pottenger Nutrition Foundation, which I just started, and Weston A. Price Foundation which has been around a while but still needs better sources. Neither are more than organizational biographies, but that still requires some good research and careful writing. Drop in if you want. Cheers, Ocaasi ^c 08:09, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for thinking that my contributions might help the development of the articles. However, I'm not very knowledgeable about the subjects—I know next to nothing about the Price-Pottenger Nutrition Foundation—and my interest would only be tangential for the Weston A. Price Foundation, if even that, so I think it unlikely that I will be contributing to them. But thanks for the heads up. Lambanog (talk) 08:17, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not always best to work on something you are directly familiar with, since it often leads to disputes about original research. And it's definitely not required to be an expert in something before working on it (else I'd be out of a job here!). But if you change your mind, pop over. Ocaasi ^c 08:20, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Coconut Oil

Can you tell me what's going on with the large LPV changes? I don't know what LPV refers to, and the last one you did pasted over my move of the fatty-acid chart into the health section rather than the lead. Cheers, Ocaasi ^c 07:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. LPV –> Lambanog's Preferred Version. I prefer an article with more information. WLU and company prefer the smaller version and have been reverting to it on sight. Feel free to edit whichever version you like. Lambanog (talk) 11:19, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible to save a draft in your userspace or even the talk page of the actual article. You just add: /WHATEVERDRAFT to the title of the page and then add content to create the page (note, in your userspace, you that on the userpage, but in articlespace you can only do it on the talk page). Also, you add the ((NOINDEX|visible = yes)) so search engines don't pick it up and ((userpage)) if it's in your userspace or ((workpage)) if it's in talkspace. I can do it for you if you'd like. Cheers, Ocaasi ^c 11:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No need. Drafting takes about just as many edits and makes it difficult to update and reconcile improvements made by others. Lambanog (talk) 12:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd actually somewhat prefer it. Alternating drafts like that in the article's history is a bit confusing, and I think it'd be easier for involved (and even moreso for uninvolved) editors to follow a consistent set of diffs on two different pages. That's not to put your version into a corner, just to keep the main page from jumping back and forth. Great if you'd consider doing that, since the current article dispute doesn't appear to be moving very quickly. Ocaasi ^c 13:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I'm sure a sharp guy like yourself won't have too much difficulty telling the versions apart. One version after all has significantly more content than the other. Anyway versions are more accessible and useful in the article history. Sometimes when working on an article I look at older versions. Seeing how a version was created incrementally allays concerns that it was simply a product of copy and paste. Lambanog (talk) 15:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the compliment, but it's not for me, really but everyone looking at the history; i acts as a barrier-to-entry for someone who doesn't know what's going on. The history page is confusing enough as it is, that to introduce multiple, semi-simultaneous versions is pretty much outside the usability capacity of the software. I agree that the incremental development of a draft is absolutely critical, when there's only one draft. The current set-up is like watching two different people tell two somewhat different stories while alternating their sentences. As much as I like a good fix to a problem which breaks convention, I don't think this is the fix. Perhaps more importantly, I want to see your draft in a permanent location, so I can look at it not in the history, but on a stable page that I can constructively edit and comment on. Of course, you want that to be the actual article but until that happens, put it somewhere safe so that it can get eyeballs. Right now I'm just tripping over it looking for what's going on (sharp as I may be). Ocaasi ^c 15:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you mean by there being a barrier to entry. Indeed by having both versions in the same article history barriers are reduced: easier comparison can be made, easier input from multiple interested users is possible, easier access, and easier updating. You can still constructively comment on the version you wish simply by identifying it as the object of your comments on the talk page. With everything in one place there's no need to go back and forth between the article pages and user subpages the location of which needs to be typed in. Lambanog (talk) 15:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hypothetical. You're go to see a movie. There's a showing of Lambanog's Opus and a showing of Lambanog's Opus: the extended cut. The establishment alternates these shows in the same exact theater, but the sign outside the theater, and the showtimes in the paper, and the title on the lobby timetable just use the name Lambanog's Opus for all of them, not changing based on which is playing. Now there's a special film-buff's guide (a DVD, which actually has both versions on it, but since that guide is for insiders, it uses abbreviations, so it titles the two Lambanog's Opus and Lambanog's Opus TEC. Upon investigation, all you know is that TEC is longer and has some looser, more adventurous camera-work. And not having a clue what is going on, you end up calling the movie theater and the DVD company for an explanation.

Instead, a simple solution is to put them in separate theaters, label each one with an intelligible title, and let the producers decide in due time which one they want to submit to the Academy. Ocaasi ^c 05:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. can you register your opinion at Mary Enig, we're trying to get the page unlocked by agreeing to some provisions. Ocaasi ^c 05:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See test screening. Lambanog (talk) 15:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any changes you make to the main page can be made in a subpage. Right now it looks like a sneaky way of engaging in a slow edit war while retaining plausible deniability. In addition it is discourteous to other editors. If you are really concerned about being able to compare the changes, given it is more of a personal project than something that is actively improving the main page, perhaps you could consider importing the changes to your sub page rather than updating your already-discussed-and-rejected changes to the main page. It will be cleaner, simpler, and it won't look like you're simply testing the attention span of the editors monitoring the coconut oil page. If you are testing the attention span, that's really just a form of edit warring. If you're genuinely forgetting to revert to the "less preferred version", you're just making completely unnecessary work for other editors. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:05, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Was in this dramafest: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Problem on BLP noticeboard Mathsci (talk) 21:35, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you remember it too. I wonder how many of the other participants do as well. Lambanog (talk) 03:01, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well I didn't, just for the record here. I just reread the whole ANI thread and I'm sorry I did. My part of the discussion was to try to calm things down but instead I was accused of bad faith. Now I have to ask, Lambanog, you bringing this up at the arb case, again why did you do it? For the record I talked to Ronz about his behavior back then and I also tried to mediate the situation with QG but couldn't finish it because I had just got out of the hospital and physically wasn't able to. So again, what was your purpose of bringing this up at the PD talk page? Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I said I think it is an interesting coincidence. Just for the record, are you related to Ronz in some way? Lambanog (talk) 10:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you keep say things are interesting to you, what is so interesting because the coincidence mantra isn't cutting it for me. You now ask me if I am related to Ronz, why don't you ask if I'm related to QG, or Brangifer or many other editors I try to help mediate? To answer your question, NO! I am not related to Ronz in any way nor any of the other editors I mentioned. As far as I'm aware, I am not related to any editors on this site. Now answer a question for me, why on earth would you even think this never mind ask it? Didn't you ask me this before? --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:26, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, just wanted it on the record. I may have asked before, but if I did, I guess I forgot your answer. QG and Brangifer? I have no current interest in them. Is there any particular reason you bring them up? As for why I ask, you seem to be a fan of his, and unfortunately I have difficulty seeing the reasons why anyone would be, so I naturally wonder why you stick up for him. Does he possess a hidden charming personality that you are privy to mayhap? Lambanog (talk) 12:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lambanog, if I may chime in, Crohnie's reputation around here as a fair dealer is pretty impeccable. She sticks up for QG because she sees so many people criticize him and wants to make sure that he is rehabilitated if possible rather than used as a punching bag. She's very sensitive to those kinds of things. Ronz and BR are both well known scientific/skeptical editors (From my experience, Brangifer is quite fair; Ronz is more severe in his approach to sourcing, which I find a bit excessive). Anyway, Crohnie is not the problem. She's just trying to keep peace. Ocaasi ^c 13:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to keep forgetting to revert to your "less preferred version" at coconut oil. On a technicality it could be considered a slow revert war, but more than that it is discourteous to your fellow editors. Please consider making these changes to a subpage instead which will not have to be continually reverted.

Also, your revert to depersonalization disorder added unsourced information and original research. I have re-reverted, but retained a paragraph rather than the bulleted list. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 10:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe the version you prefer clearly represents consensus. Sources that were accepted as reliable on the RS noticeboard have been unilaterally removed on your part with no clear explanation. Support is given in archived discussion that Conrado Dayrit's work on the subject deserves mention—again work that you have removed without convincing rationale. If I revert to the version you prefer even if it contains numerous errors and is substantially less developed, it is as a courtesy and to avoid hassle while I am updating and improving a version with substantially more information. The last time it was reverted recently very little time (1 minute) had elapsed to allow me to revert back. If you feel this is an inadequate situation, would you like to bring this to mediation?

Regarding the depersonalization disorder article could you specify the exact information you are challenging? There were no inline tags suggesting anything was found wanting nor was there discussion on the talk page clearly laying out any problems that had consensus support. Lambanog (talk) 12:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I read the consensus on the talk page as not supporting coconut oil as health food, but supporting including some of the minority opinion that it might be healthy due to it's unique profile of saturated fats. Dayrit was discussed as a further reading inclusion here, and I removed it as further reading here. I don't believe it was ever used, or discussed, as a source. Yobol commented that we would be better off citing Dr. Dayrit's scholarly rather than popular works, but again at no point did the "consensus" version include Dr. Dayrit's work as a source. It's possible one of your preferred versions did include his work but since you are apparently uninterested in seeking greater comment on those, I've simply been reverting them on site and not checking the actual edits. I read the talk page as pretty clearly indicating a consensus that coconut oil should not be labelled as health food because most major scientific and public health outlets view it as containing unhealthy amounts of saturated fats. Perhaps I'm wrong, but you would have to bring this up on the talk page again and I still have yet to see high-quality sources supporting this viewpoint. Again, I have no problem with Dayrit's scholarly works being used as references, but I do object to his popular works being used as further reading. Very different issues.

If you really want to avoid hassle, I would again urge you to simply use a subpage where you can edit to your heart's content and present the results for comment. I still see the talk page as spending a fair amount of time discussing your edits and sources but ultimately reaching a conclusion you don't agree with. Such is editing at wikipedia, we don't always get what we want and frequently the pages do not reflect the truth about the world - only the best summary of the best sources to date.

From the depersonalization disorder page, I removed a reference to a Camus novel as original research, a reference to a nonnotable novel by David Zweig (who is himself nonnotable), a BLP issue in the reference to Adam Duritz (who never stated he was diagnosed with depersonalization disorder), and reworded the reference to Suzanne Segal. I see no issue with these edits and stand by them - not to mention my addition of actual citations for many of these statements, citations your revert removed. Are there any other issues regarding that page? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:21, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with the current situation where I am updating my preferred version which is far more complete as part of the article history and then it being reverted if it really isn't the consensus version. If you have a problem with the current state of affairs, as I said, we can bring this to mediation to sort out. Regarding Dayrit, if I recall correctly, a scholarly source of his was included but was removed anyway with no explanation. As for how most major health outlets view it, that information is included even if the sources cited in support of that position lack detail. But it is not presented in your version that coconut oil is considered at worst similar to many other oils, as the New York Times piece discusses (and as many of the other sources provided but uncritically removed also say) or that there is no comprehensive review of coconut oil itself (not surprising given the state of affairs with eggs, dairy and red meat which have yet to be conclusively demonstrated as being bad for their saturated fats), but rather opinion on it is an extension of an opinion on saturated fat which is itself as noted is the subject of some controversy. That's material information but it appears you are not interested in that, or building the article as a whole.

Regarding the depersonalization disorder article, I'm sorry if that is the case but I don't see where I removed citations you added. In fact if I recall correctly I was restoring citations you removed. Could you provide the diff so I can see what you are talking about? Regarding the other items, this was not explained on the talk page or edit summaries, so from what I saw it was simply removal of information. Maybe you'd like to explain on the talk page of the article what you've stated here so that others interested in editing it in the future can understand your rationale for the removal of information? You should always attempt to explain such removals. Lambanog (talk) 18:13, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding depersonalization, see this diff. Note that the version you saved includes the information about Adam Duritz, the reference to The Stranger by Albert Camus as well as Inside the Sun by David Zweig, The Snowman's Children by Glen Hirshberg, as well as the extended summary of the Segal reference. The version I saved removed Duritz, The Stranger and Inside the Sun, added a citation for The Snowman's Children (your revert replaced the inclusion without a reference) and included a different summary of Collisions by Segal.

My point exactly: you removed information that had references with no explanation—and I restored the information. Where did I remove your citations as you claim above? Lambanog (talk) 19:20, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a problem with the current version? Otherwise I don't want to waste my time debating hypotheticals. I can explain why I made every edit I did, but won't bother if you don't think the current version is problematic. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I, and apparently several others, do have a problem with you editing your "preferred version" in mainspace, and have repeatedly pointed towards a subpage as a solution. You may veiw it as more complete, but other editors, including myself, believed it included too much emphasis on a fringe point of view that coconut oil is a healthy fat. It may be that this is true, but until it is accepted by the scientific community as conclusively proven, we should only reference it as a minority point of veiw with less detail and without endorsing it. We certainly shoudln't portray it as the "correct" version and the scholarly community at large being wrong, blind, ignorant or prejudiced against this viewpoint, unless there are high quality sources indicating this is the case.

In the RS Noticeboard discussion on this topic, an impartial editor reviewing the sources specifically took exception to the manner editors such as yourself are flinging around the word fringe. Support your stand with sources. Note also that hardly anything is conclusively proven in this area including, the notion that saturated fats are unhealthy. As for what you believe to be limitations to my version, I do not see much detail given on the talk page. It seems to be a pattern with your edits: you do not explain, you just remove. Lambanog (talk) 19:20, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The RSN is about whether a source is reliable. I have contested several sources for not being reliable, but the meat of that discussion seemed to be a complete tangent on their reliability. You kept bringing up whether books should be in the further reading section. I indicated that's the kind of discussion to have on the relevant talk page. I then had that discussion on the coconut oil talk page. What else do you want? These are separate issues - a reliable source is not necessarily appropriate as further reading. The RSN discussion is here. There's a lot of discussion about sources - most were identified as reliable (the purpose of the RSN) but the issues with the sources were never their reliability. It was about their use. I only explain my edits when they are disputed, otherwise it's a waste of time. I think you'll find that my disputed edits I tend to discuss at length, with frequent references to policies and guidelines. If you have a substantive disagreement with my editing style, you are welcome to open a WP:RFC/U. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Dayrit, I have only seen diffs indicating he was removed as a further reading, not a source - this was discussed in several places, but always as further reading, not as a source. Even if the edit summary did not include the information, that does not mean a talk page discussion did not occur. It's possible he has been removed as a source as well, but I haven't seen it yet. I would personally oppose including information about the health benefits of coconut oil based on his popular work, but I have nothing against his scholarly work being judiciously cited. What is there to mediate in that set of statements? You can bring it up if you'd like, but I can't see a set of experienced editors changing their minds based on the sources I've seen to date. The point is that major and important organizations said the things they did about coconut oil, not whether we, as editors, believe there was sufficient analysis or if they are wrong. The point is that coconut oil is currently considered by most health organizations to present risks equivalent to other saturated fats. The New York Times is a well-respected newspaper, not a scholarly publication, and should not be considered on par with statements by the FDA, WHO, ICN, ADA, AHA, etc. not to mention the scholarly publications that present cautions and caveats regarding coconut oil. Even now, the page spends considerable text discussing how coconut oil may not be a health risk - it's by far the largest part of the health section. This is appropriate, borderline excessive, given the opinion of most organizations on the health effects of saturated fats, including coconut oil. I have no problem documenting the change in opinion regarding fats and oils, if it occurs. But wikipedia is not the place to promote fringe theories. When the science and recommendations swing around to indicate certain fats are good for you, then we document it. We do not do so before. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:44, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the statements that you cite in support are that they have no discussion, no nuance. Other sources do. Even while acknowledging the statements of various organizations they still say the same thing: in moderation probably not that bad. Yes high it's high in saturated fat but intriguing nonetheless. If you can provide sources that have that nuance that contradict what is said in the scientific reviews and newspaper reports I've presented go ahead and show them. I have also provided higher quality sources than the ones you point to that pretty much undercut the "it's bad because it has saturated fats" stand but you seem to be blind to them. Lambanog (talk) 19:20, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nuance and discussion don't matter. If the world-premiere expert on coconut oil showed up and started posting unsourced information in support of coconut oil being an unhealthy fat, I'd revert that just as quickly. We cite sources based on their reputation for fact checking and accuracy, not on how good a job we think they do. I could criticize the shit out of the awful studies and meta-analyses they do of acupuncutre, but I'm not permitted because that's original research. The issue you raise isn't a problem, it's a reality of the field, and we do not try to predict future research results. Both the body (and now the lead) state that the recommendation is against significant consumption; it's not phrased as an outright ban. I've acknowledged, in fact I've edited towards the idea that coconut oil might be good for you, but I have argued against the fringe idea that they're an outright health food. We don't run in front of the majority opinion - until there's a more significant group of scholars who have argued coconut oil is health food, we shouldn't make it appear as if this claim is proven science. I think the current page does that. Dietary epidemiology is a notoriously difficult field to "prove" anything, particularly for single ingredients that are supposed to act as drugs. If this changes, we can reflect the opinion. We just can't lead it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your "updating" of your "less preferred version" is looking less like updating a personal parallel version, and now more like simple edit warring. Consider this your first warning - please stop "updating" the page to a version that is not supported by consensus. You have been reverted multiple times by multiple editors, [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], very clearly there is not consensus to support these edits. Either discuss them on the talk page, or stop making them. Please stop gaming the system to make a point. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 10:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the future WLU please inform me of any notices you make such as this on another user's talk page or avoid making them. It looks like canvassing to me or worse yet evidence of tag-teaming. For your information. Lambanog (talk) 11:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is canvassing, see WP:CANVAS. Since both these editors (don't forget Ocaasi) have reverted your changes to coconut oil, both have been involved in establishing consensus and in the "slow burn" edit war, it's quite natural I would alert them that I am taking steps to end it. Yes, it is canvasing, of the type supported at WP:CANVAS. Would you prefer I used e-mail, communicated in code or a foreign language you don't speak? Posting a single pointer to your talk page hardly seems like the brilliant plan of an evil genius.

Although the point that I should have alerted you I was notifying them is taken, it's a habit I should get into. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you stating unequivocally then that you don't use email or special code to communicate with the other involved editors and do not intend to? Lambanog (talk) 11:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Christ. Why the fuck would I use special code or e-mail when I left blatantly obvious pointers to this very talk page where I make a cogent argument supported by various policies, guideline and diffs as a warning against inappropriate behaviour? I don't need to use "secret codes" or e-mail to illustrate how your behaviour is problematic, and if I wanted to game the system against you, I'd hardly make it so fucking obvious.

No, I have never used e-mail or secret codes to communicate with Yobol, Ocaasi, or any other editor about an account whom I was undertaking actions I consider harmful to wikipedia or violating the rules the community uses to determine appropriate actions. In this case, that would be you engaging in a slow edit war on coconut oil to support an inappropriate, POV-pushing version which is in violation of the opinion of the scholarly majority using disingenuous tactics and system-gaming explanations for your actions which would be better undertaken on, as I and others have said repeatedly, a sub page. The point is, even if I were, it is your actions that are problematic and what would be used by the community to determine appropriateness. There's no need for me to play games, because your edits are fairly obviously the problem. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not surprisingly I beg to differ. It is you who has been removing sourced RSN vetted material to POV push your idea of what is accepted despite a lack of detailed sources to support your view or suitable explanations to argue against other views. Not only do you do this for this article but a whole array of articles. I have not seen you produce a quality article of your own although I get the feeling you've probably demolished quite a few being built by others. I guess it should not be surprising why. Your actions cripple articles by uncritically removing information wholesale without thought to the overall article quality. You are only interested in your POV even though on close inspection it can be shown that there isn't much behind it. Your analysis of sources is superficial as demonstrated by your opposition to one produced by the FAO which you were compelled to end up using just to paper over the inanity of your previous opposition to it. Please do this project a favor and learn to build an article and get out of the way of other people who do know. Here's a challenge for you: make a better coconut oil article than the piece of junk you're currently supporting. Make it better and more informative than the version I currently have and I'll even support it. But you cannot seriously expect me to look at that version you are pushing and expect me to think you have a serious interest in this subject or are doing any good. Lambanog (talk) 12:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to completely agree that this is basically a slow edit war Lambanog is pushing. The consensus is against you, please desist. I agree with Ocaasi's assessment that this behavior is a barrier for new editors to understand what is going on on the page and is therefore disruptive. I therefore agree that you should desist from this disruptive behavior. I would also remark that your accusations above against WLU are clearly a violation of WP:AGF and would advise you to drop it. Yobol (talk) 12:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My comment to WLU applies to you too Yobol: make a good article. By the way, what accusation do you refer to? Lambanog (talk) 12:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A great article is neutral, meaning giving primary weight to the majority scholarly viewpoint. You know, that coconut oil is high in saturated fats and therefore according to current knowledge about diet and nutrition is probably bad for you. You may claim that this is not the case, but that's not enough. You have to demonstrate it through reference to high-quality sources. Wikipedia is only prevented from pushing every nutter fringe idea and pet theory championed by some lunatic by the willingness of editors to remove bad information supported only by poor-quality or misrepresnted sources. It is because of editors like me that AIDS does not include an extensive discussion of the Duesberg hypothesis, and evolution is not crammed to the gills with nonsense about creationism and intelligent design. Contemplate what it would look like if someone managed to self-publish a book about coconut milk being responsible for herpes and the death of babies. Should we tell both sides of that story? Sometimes better means less bad information, and it never means edit warring, fast or slow.

Also, there's a difference between reliable sources and further reading. It's extremely unlikely I would remove a reliable source without good reason expressed on the talk page, and as talk:coconut oil indicates, this was the case.

By the way, I wrote almost the entire satanic ritual abuse page. I'm quite proud of it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, seeing the way you slice and tear at less-than-optimally sourced claims, it makes perfect sense. :-) Ocaasi ^c 13:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Writing is always a balance of inclusion and exclusion. Where to draw the line is a matter or policy, ideology, and taste. I accept there is a difference of opinion here. That's fine. But a slow-edit war from either side is not a way to fix it, and it makes it more difficult for both readers and editors to follow and contribute. Lambanog I'm going to recommend again that I place your version in a talk subpage with a talkpage notice that it is being proposed as an alternate version. Because the current version is not accepted by you, I will tag it with NPOV (I know, ironic).

As marginally uninvolved, or at least marginally neutral with regards to the policy here, I will actually do this now. If LPV is replaced prematurely I will seek page protection (which would lock in one version temporarily; see: Wikipedia:PREFER and m:The_Wrong_Version for a chuckle). That said, Lambanog, you can move content from your draft to the main article through normal editing procedures. You just shouldn't move the whole thing at once, since contentious changes should be handled in manageable chunks. If the difference of opinion cannot be bridged, we'll have an RfC to vote on which draft is more appropriate. Ocaasi ^c 13:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a response to the "make a good article" trope being used over and over again - I believe I have made some significant contributions to multiple articles which I think are good. Whether or not you disagree with my editing philosophy, there is no need for you to imply that I do not or have not made good edits to articles and would appreciate it if you stop with these silly accusations. Yobol (talk) 14:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm irked that it's claimed my sole motivation on the page is squeezing out one particular viewpoint. Particularly given edits like this, where I added substantial new content; this where I made minor corrections to a citation template; this where I corrected an extremely inaccurate statement after considerable time digging up an accurate reliable source; this where I updated and corrected production numbers; this where I adjusted the lead in a way that favours Lambanog's position. Yes, we disagree. But the point is to resolve the issues by discussion. It's quite possible you won't get to "your" preferred version - but wikipedia is a worldwide, collaborative, source-based effort. It is not a place to promote a viewpoint. It is not a place to speculate on future scientific consensus. It is not a place to publish scientific articles. And it must reflect the current consensus even if that consensus is wrong. We resolve disagreements through sources and discussions, not edit wars. Considering this entire dispute centers on one small section about apparent health benefits, and that section admits that the issue is not settled based on information your apparently unreasonable "opponents" both included and defended, I think you are being unreasonable. I am convinced there is space for a brief and tentative section where the possible health effects of coconut oil can be explored - I just don't think we should present it as if the current opinion is wrong. Frankly, I'm not sure what else you would want on the page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note

Note. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

... at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request re Guinness and hot peppers. Please revisit and let us know if the question is still open.LeadSongDog come howl! 20:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop disrupting the article talk page and please read WP:TALKNEW and WP:TALKO --Ronz (talk) 16:16, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Section headings: Because threads are shared by multiple editors (regardless how many have posted so far), no one, including the original poster, "owns" a talk page discussion or its heading. It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better header is appropriate, e.g. one more descriptive of the content of the discussion or the issue discussed, less one-sided, more appropriate for accessibility reasons, etc. To avoid disputes it is best to discuss a heading change with the editor who started the thread, if possible, when a change is likely to be controversial."

Please explain why you believe your version is better, rather focusing once again on me and your need to treat me as an adversary. --Ronz (talk) 16:18, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see you're edit-warring again. Please stop.

The title I've given it describes the issues. I'll go ahead and try a different title instead, while I await you to explain your preference. --Ronz (talk) 00:56, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As you are a dedicated editor of Philippine articles, could you consider a temporary distraction from your usual editing to apply some local knowledge and help us clean up this problem per foreseeable outcome. It would be much appreciated. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More editors who may know more at Wikipedia_talk:Tambayan_Philippines Lambanog (talk) 12:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Mary G. Enig . Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

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. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --Ronz (talk) 15:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ANI here --Ronz (talk) 16:39, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. [32] --Ronz (talk) 02:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Lambanog. You have new messages at Talk:Philippine cuisine.
Message added 04:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Infant massage. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

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. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Yobol (talk) 12:53, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the documentation at template:POV. The usage notes state:

• Do not use this template unless there is an ongoing dispute in an article. (only you think there is an ongoing dispute)
• The editor placing this template in an article should promptly begin a discussion on the article's talk page. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant, then this tag may be removed by any editor. (we have discussed this, only you believe there is a dispute, everyone else believes the article is adequate)
• The purpose of this group of templates is to attract editors with different viewpoints to edit articles that need additional insight. This template should not be used as a badge of shame. Do not use this template to "warn" readers about the article. (the template sat for months without attracting attention, serving only as a "badge of shame", so it should be removed)
• This template should only be applied to articles that are reasonably believed to lack a neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is determined by the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality reliable sources, not by its prevalence among Wikipedia editors. (and here is the rub, you have failed to demonstrate that adequate sources support your contention; please stop tagging the article)

You are mis-using the template and have no support from any other editor, while several editors have discussed and disagree with you. Stop replacing the tag. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no active dispute on the coconut oil talk page. Several editors in several different venues have stated that they do not believe there is an active dispute. What justification do you have to keep replacing the tag? I see none, particularly considering no less than four editors have removed it to date one, two, three, and of course, four. There is no active discussion on the talk page. There is a difference between a page being NPOV as justified by numerous reliable sources not being appropriately cited, and after discussion, disagreeing with the consensus that the current version is fine. Nobody else thinks there is justification in the tag, it is inappropriate to tag the page because your POV is not agreed with. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:10, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

did you know Paris was engaged to fashion model Jason Shaw in may 2002? Darkstar1st (talk) 20:37, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughtful comment at the NPOV noticeboard yesterday. I did a little homework and have made an additional reply to your comment. Hope you find it relevant. Early morning person (talk) 19:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion at the DSN is about bioidentical hormone replacement therapy. If you have genuine concerns about another editor, please bring up your issues at a user request for comment. You should not bring up unrelated concerns, you are interfering with the attempt to genuinely resolve a dispute. You had a chance to use the DRN to resolve issues at coconut oil, and you did not take it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:13, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit, you add 22 pages from a particular journal, incorporating six separate articles. Are you genuinely citing all six of them? Can the text you are verifying be justified by a single article in that range? If not, I would be concerned over syntheses of several sources to venture a conclusion. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have made an edit war report involving you at EWN should you wish to remark or comment there. — TransporterMan (TALK) 18:05, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And have now re-made it. — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:01, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see that your readdition of a POV tag to the lead of Coconut oil has been made the subject of a new 3RR report. See

• WP:AN3#User:Lambanog reported by User:TransporterMan (Repost 1) (Result: )

POV tags need consensus to be there, just like any other article content. Since you've readded tags many times after others have removed them, this raises the question of whether the tag has consensus to be there. If you believe so, please cite your evidence. Mention anyone who agrees with you that the article is not neutral. If not, it is possible that you will be blocked for edit warring. You are invited to reply in the AN3 report cited above. For full context you should also see the previous edit warring report: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive166#User:Lambanog and User:WLU reported by User:TransporterMan (Result: ).

More background to why you might be blocked can be seen in this comment by Yobol from the older report:

• Let's break this down to the bare facts so we don't get bogged down in the back and forth. Lambanog has edit-warred against 5 different editors: Ocaasi, Yobol, Ronz, Belg4mit, and WLU numerous times over the course of 5 months. No one else has put the POV tag back except for Lambaong. Meanwhile, Lambanog justifies their behavior by numerous accusations of bad faith, basically trying to justify why ignoring the consensus on the talk page, accusing everyone else in being in a coordinated cabal against them. If someone could place a stop to this disruption, it would be appreciated. Yobol (talk) 00:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If Yobol is correct that you are one person editing against five others, this is something you should answer. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 03:05, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response on my talk page. The fact that you see the others as being in league against you doesn't excuse you from needing consensus for your edits. If you will agree to stop inserting the POV tags at Coconut oil until consensus is found, you may be able to avoid a block. You still have not given the name of any editor besides yourself who supports including the POV tags. I do not see anyone at Talk:Coconut oil supporting your views, and many who are opposed. EdJohnston (talk) 13:59, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you decline to respond with a promise to stop reverting you will most likely be blocked. I notice you edited an article at 15:13 today which is later than my notice above. EdJohnston (talk) 18:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at Coconut oil. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text ((unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~)), but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

The complete report of this case is at WP:AN3#User:Lambanog reported by User:TransporterMan (Repost 1) (Result: 48h). EdJohnston (talk) 19:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong. See here. As for not responding, not everyone is in your time zone. I was planning on a response the next time I logged on. Lambanog (talk) 02:47, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the recent edit you made to transclude an RfA was not done correctly and was reverted to allow you to do it properly. My76Strat (talk) 04:49, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your attempt to nominate yourself at WP:RFA. I wanted to warn you that beginning an RFA so recently after a block may be unwise. I also thought you may want to read Wikipedia:What adminship is not if you have not already. Monty₈₄₅ 04:54, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perthaps, Lambanog, you should also read WP:Advice for RfA candidates. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:43, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text ((unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~)), but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:06, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per this edit you appear to be involved in continued edit warring after a recent block for the same. [33][34] Please develop consensus through a RfC.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:08, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Lambanog. You have new messages at Talk:Philippines#Additional revison.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Hello, Lambanog. You have new messages at Eagles247's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

--The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 15:29, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your request at WP:RX has received a reply. JanetteDoe (talk) 16:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re your edit here [35], see discussion on Talk page, but esp. my recent "reasonable people" section. Yakushima (talk) 11:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Lambanog. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 01:15, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to the 3rd Philippine Wiki Conference (WikiCon) on May 26, 2012 9am-1pm at the co.lab.exchange in Pasig City. Please fill this form should you signify interest. --Exec8 (talk) 17:45, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the NPOV tag you added to this article as it was not obvious what you feal the problem is. If you believe there is a POV problem with the page, please explain the problem on the article's talk page when you add the tag. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:58, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 16:59, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

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. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. --Ronz (talk) 21:18, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

		The Million Award
		For your contributions to bring Philippines (estimated annual readership: 4,327,000) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Million Award is a new initiative to recognize the editors of Wikipedia's most-read content; you can read more about the award and its possible tiers (Quarter Million Award, Half Million Award, and Million Award) at Wikipedia:Million Award. You're also welcome to display this userbox:

This editor won the Million Award for bringing Philippines to Good Article status.

If I've made any error in this listing, please don't hesitate to correct it; if for any reason you don't feel you deserve it, please don't hesitate to remove it; if you know of any other editor who merits one of these awards, please don't hesitate to give it; if you yourself deserve another award from any of the three tiers, please don't hesitate to take it! Cheers and all best, -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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) 14:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]