Usapang tagagamit:23prootie/4

Your messages on my talkpage

Thanks for your conciliatory tone - I know we're not quite agreeing over Alexis Grace and the like, but I'm glad we can approach the issue maturely. Many thanks Fritzpoll (talk) 21:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Sometimes you just have to cool off for people to listen to you. Although, I think you should hold on to your thanks a bit longer because I have been badmouthing you elsewhere in Wikipedia. hehe.--23prootie (talk) 00:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• • • you forgot colouring Cuba in green on the map; it's still blue. *** —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.90.6.150 (talk) 16:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

April 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Portal:Current events/2009 April 1, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Tomdobb (talk) 18:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Portal:Current events/2009 April 1. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Tomdobb (talk) 18:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Portal:Current events/2009 April 1. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Tomdobb (talk) 18:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Durban Review Conference

Was this an error or intentional? - Mailer Diablo 16:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• No, hehe. --23prootie (talk) 16:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Map style

I noticed the reversion at File:Durbanreviewboycott.PNG, so I'm dropping you this note to let you know that I prefer your style of map, in case it ever matters. —Toby Bartels (talk) 00:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks ;).--23prootie (talk) 18:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

On the topic of the image, could you verify Malaysia's status? It claims the country is a member of the Bureau of the Preparatory Committee, yet Durban Review Conference mentions nothing of it. - 60.50.253.242 (talk) 09:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

FYI, the image has been converted to an SVG image (File:Durbanreviewboycott.svg). A clarification is still needed. - 60.49.109.78 (talk) 03:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Jessica Harp

Template:Jessica Harp has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 17:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Jessica Harp

I have nominated Padron:Lc for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 17:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Michelle Branch

I have nominated Padron:Lc for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 17:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Orgy of pov, unsourced material and misquoted sources

Please stop vandalizing Kris Allen. Your paragraph isn't what the media has noted; it's what you have noted, and then provided citations that have nothing to do with and never mention your absurd claims. I urge you, STOP NOW. Because the next time you add it, I WILL report you. Wikipedia isn't too fond of people vandalizing their WP:BLPs.--Yolgnu (talk) 21:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

AI categories

Hi there. I see you've been doing a lot of work on the pages for American Idol contestants, adding some categories that don't seem to be substantiated in the articles, for instance, putting Megan Joy into the American fashion designers category, Michael Sarver into American multi-instrumentalists, and Anoop Desai into American stage actors. Can you offer any clarity on these? Thanks. — Bdb484 (talk) 23:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Megan, I'm not sure about. I did not put "fashion designer" there in the first place. It was already there so i added the category. With Michael, he said in interviews that he played many instruments. I think it's in Entertainment Weekly. While Anoop said on Larry King that he was a stage actor.--23prootie (talk) 23:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Per WP:COP, it's probably better to whittle those lists down to limit the number of categories and keep them relevant to the subjects' notability. I'll get going on that. — Bdb484 (talk) 01:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi again. I see you're reverting some of the changes I've made. In hopes of avoiding an edit war, do you think we could talk out what's worth keeping over here before we start going back and forth on each page? — Bdb484 (talk) 01:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm returning categories relevant to the show, Kris played the piano, Allison is a minor, Danny made it clear that he believes in God and so on and so forth...--23prootie (talk) 01:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I get that, but I think we're running into category overload. Beyond that, Kris isn't notable as a ukelele player, piano player or Christian. He's notable for winning a singing competition. — Bdb484 (talk) 02:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

23prootie, for what it's worth, I think WP:COP supports Bdb484's position on this. But mainly I came by your talk page to ask you to be careful not to get into edit warring about this sort of thing. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. Thanks for your concern< But this is not the only time I got accused of such tactics so U'm used to that. --23prootie (talk) 09:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment of ASEAN

Hello, I am notifying you as the primary editor that ASEAN has been reassessed as part of the GA Sweeps project. I have found the article to not currently meet the GA Criteria. As such I have put it on hold for one week pending edits to improve its quality. My review is here. If you have questions please contact me at my talk page. H1nkles (talk) 21:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Migration templates

Hi. Can I advise you to take a look at this deletion discussion before trying to combine ethnicity and country of birth in templates such as Migration to the United Kingdom from Africa. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding this edit, African Americans may well be Africans in some sense, but the template is supposed to be about migration from Africa to the UK, not migration of Africans to the UK. There's a subtle difference. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the template should be more inclusive. African Americans tend to relate to Africa as pat of the African diaspora. The template should include those who originated from Africa and those who have origins there as long as they exist as distinct identity (separated from other Americans in the United Kingdom).--23prootie (talk) 20:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Then you're probably going to have to rename the template. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. I think it depends on what you consider an "African". It doesn't matter where they were born or were they lived, if they say they're African they're form Africa.--23prootie (talk) 20:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Migration from Africa involves people leaving Africa. If they've never been there, how can people emigrate from Africa? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I changed it to "migrants with origins from Africa" to include the diaspora then changed the word "migrant" to "immigrant" to avoid a clash with the "Out of Africa" theory.--23prootie (talk) 20:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, well that at least makes the content and title consistent, although I'm slightly worried that it takes the templates in a race/ethnicity direction again, which is why they were originally deleted. Also, if African Americans belong on the African migration template, what about white Americans? Surely by the same token they should be on the European migration template? Cordless Larry (talk) 21:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I intentionally want it to go the race/ethnicity route since they represent "communities" in the UK not "nationalities". This route is fine as long as the community is pretty established as such ala British South Asians.--23prootie (talk) 21:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

As for the Americans in Europeans thing. I tried fixing that but gave up since they are a lot of similar articles. I suggest that as long as the title of the article does not explicitly state "European", or "Asian" (or "Indo"), they should stay in their respective continents.--23prootie (talk) 21:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The articles represent communities in the UK with a background in a specific foreign country. They don't necessarily share an ethnicity, South Africans being a case in point. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Some do, some don't. British Arabs share an identity while other Western Asians don't. It's a case-to-case basis. If a certain community is supported by the census or an article then they go together, for example British East Asians. It shouldn't be focused on national origin alone, otherwise certain articles would be excluded like British Montserratians for instance.--23prootie (talk) 22:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I meant people within each group don't necessarily share an identity, since there are virtually no ethnically homogenous states. So we can't assume that people with a background in a country are of a certain ethnicity. Take East African Asians, for instance. How should they be categorised if we are mixing ethnicity and country of birth? They are from Africa but belong to the British Asian group in the census. That's why we can't mix ethnicity and country of birth on the same template. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Your over-thinking this. It doesn't depend on who they were when they were still outside Britain, it depends on the fact that when they're arrived, they (or society) considered them to be part of a larger community. What truly matters is that British Indians are considered as British South Asians and the British Afro-Caribbean community is considered Black British. If a certain nationality is associated with a community in Britain, it's not necessary for all members of that nationality to be part of that community, because were dealing here with people not individual persons.--23prootie (talk) 22:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, if East African Asians happen to get their own article, then they would be categorised in relevant templates (both African and Asian ala British Arabs).--23prootie (talk) 22:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

So you're saying that the templates don't necessarily denote ethnicity or country origin, but rather can be either? Cordless Larry (talk) 22:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Or both... heh, yes!--23prootie (talk) 22:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, so at least we know that our understanding is now shared. My problem with this set-up is that in mixing origin and ethnicity on the same template, we make that template very imprecise. Surely it's better to have one template for ethnicity, and one for country of origin? These are both categorised (independently of one another) by the census, so it's easily possible. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I actually made some (See British Arab, British East Asians). Some got deleted. You are free to re-make them if you wish. --23prootie (talk) 22:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

They probably got deleted because they linked ethnicity to country of birth. I was envisaging one template that lists the census ethnicity categories such as British Asian, to go on articles about those groups, and other templates listing countries of birth to go on articles such as Americans in the United Kingdom. What do you think? Cordless Larry (talk) 22:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Your first suggestion is fine. The second, well... the problem there is that it ignores certain communities like the Kurdish, who do not originate from a single country. If you wish to create that template, do it. Just keep the present ones.--23prootie (talk) 22:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to keep the current ones if we remove from them the ethnic group articles which will instead appear on the new one that I create. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Let me see them first.--23prootie (talk) 22:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at Template:UK census ethnic groups. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Vital Articles

Please check your templates. You are tagging articles like God and Holy Spirit as vital articles in the topic of Geography. I can only assume you mean religion - but you may want to check your recent edits. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 17:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Move about vital articles

Greetings, and thanks for helping us out with the Vital articles! We really appreciate having ideas for what articles to add, especially from people with diverse viewpoints and backgrounds. Currently we have the level-2 vital articles (the top-100) pretty much set in stone, and we're working on getting the level-3 articles (the top-1000) figured out. We've been discussing this mostly at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/3.

We've already decided on the 70 Art articles and the 100 Geography articles, and we really can't add anymore without taking some out. Metro Manila and Marilyn Monroe are certainly important, but it's going to be tough to decide whether to leave them out, or if not, which other articles should be removed in their place. Again, Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/3 is the best place to talk this over with other editors. For the other categories (History, Language... all the way to Technology) we're still working on those, and we're trying to make sure there aren't any obvious gaps before we start trimming them down to their designated number of articles.

Thanks for helping out here, – Quadell ^(talk) 20:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

June 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Lost (TV series). Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

List of President of the Philippines

Hey man, I like what you did about the List... but I think Macario Sakay is from the Bonifacio Faction (Magdiwang) not of Aguinaldo's Magdalo.. peads (talk) 06:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• • Yay!! Thanks!!! It's fixed.--23prootie (talk) 06:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem :) peads (talk) 07:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Jessica Harp

A tag has been placed on Template:Jessica Harp, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

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. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey 23prootie. I've deleted the template per Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_April_29#Template:Jessica_Harp. As explained above, an exact recreation of deleted content which was deleted as a result of a discussion can be redeleted. Please do not create the template without discussing it first. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 20:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• Watch it with the templates, please. The Michelle Branch template should only be used to navigate among her solo work. Also, "Leave the Pieces" and "My, Oh My" are The Wreckers songs, not Michelle Branch or Jessica Harp songs. Would you categorize a Beatles song as a John Lennon song or a Paul McCartney song? An Eagles song as a Don Henley, Glenn Frey, etc. song? Use only the most specific category, and please don't go nutso with the templates. Jessica Harp does not have enough solo work for a template yet, and simply adding the Wreckers' work to her template does nothing but duplicate the function of The Wreckers' template. Is there really a need to have most of the same stuff in three separate templates? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:The Wreckers

I have nominated Padron:Lc for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Template

I think that if you want to consolidate the templates, the best move would be to make a combined The Wreckers template that includes both The Wreckers' releases, as well as Michelle's and Jessica's releases. See {{Big & Rich}}, which includes Big & Rich's release, as well as Big Kenny's and John Rich's. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 15:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• So, what do you think of this solution? That way, we'd only have one template which can be used on all three articles. I think it'd be a lot neater that way. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
• Yeah, that would be a good idea. Though Michelle should get top bunk since she has the most records among the 3 artists.--23prootie (talk) 20:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Jessica Harp

• The full, correct name goes at the very beginning of the article -- the first words -- and it is the only version of her name to receive bold face.
• Although, the early life info is lacking and needs to be expanded upon, it still remains separate.
• Just saying that Harp appeared at a football game implies she was alone, nothing more needs to be said.
• Just in general: Jessica Harp's article looks pretty bad... its in need some help, and I provided it but despite the improvement made to the article, you keep putting everything back to the way it was. CloversMallRat (talk) 16:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

3RR warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Pacific War. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Nick-D (talk) 07:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello, 23prootie. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Nick-D (talk) 08:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Editing the comments of other users

Please don't alter other users' discussion comments, as you did here. I presume this was unintentional on your part, but please take care. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry.--23prootie (talk) 15:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

We're not "all against you"

Just a general comment - I get the feeling that you feel like Wikipedia is championing the "dead white European" view of history, and that we are all against you trying to put forward the non-white perspective. I just want to assure you I don't think this is the case.

It is a (SAD!) fact of history that until around 1950 European/American powers absolutely controlled world events. Adding to the insult is the fact that predominately "white" nations like Australia and New Zealand were granted full independence, whereas "non-white" nations like India were repeatedly denied it. There is no dispute that this was *completely* racist in its nature.

One of the great achievements of the latter 20th century was the wholesale movement towards genuine independence across most of the former colonial world, most notably in Asia and Africa. (The journey is nowhere near finished yet, but at least a lot of progress has been made.)

I think a lot of the dispute you are finding is the fact that you think that people are denying your editing because of racist motivations. I don't think this is the case. Rather it is a very sad reflection of the fact that during WWII nations like India and the Phillipines were denied a genuine voice in world affairs and were simply not permitted to join in major decisions. What participation they had was at the behest of the larger powers. Yes this is insulting, yes this is unfair. Fortunately some good came from it as it motivated these nations to seek true independence.

I know you feel very passionate about ensuring that the history of your country is properly represented - which is fair enough. Maybe focusing for a while on the later history of your country will be more satisfying? Just a suggestion. Manning (talk) 02:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Philippines and the List of Sovereign States by year

Please stop reverting the edits on the List of Sovereign States pages. For one thing, you're restoring incorrect information about Newfoundland. But more importantly, you're putting in highly misleading information about the Philippines. Here's a citation from a reliable source that states things pretty unamibguously.

"Manuel QUEZON was elected president and was tasked with preparing the country for independence after a 10-year transition. In 1942 the islands fell under Japanese occupation during World War II, and US forces and Filipinos fought together during 1944-45 to regain control. On 4 July 1946 the Republic of the Philippines attained its independence." [1]

As the United States was the colonial power in question, this source should be sufficient. But in case it's not, here are some relevant NYT articles to back it up:

"Breaking a thirty-year precedent of Vociferous demands for immediate and complete independence, Commonwealth President Manuel Quezon today [March 16, 1938] tacitly assented to High Commissioner Paul V. McNutt's advocacy of indefinite American retention of the Philippines in the following carefully worded statement:" [2]

"MANILA, Thursday, July 4 [1946]-- The Stars and Stripes were gently lowered at 10 o'clock this morning before a huge assembly of dignitaries and citizens as the Philippine national emblem, red, white and blue with sun and three stars, took its place, signaling the transfer of sovereignty to the independent Philippines." [3]

I am sorry if the article for the Philippine Commonwealth has misled you in some way, but the Philippines was a dependent territory of the United States until 1946. It had a high degree of self-government, but it was only self-governing as a commonwealth of the United States and not as an independent country. Please revert your edits. Orange Tuesday (talk)

Philippines Again

I am not saying that the Philippines didn't have a high level of self-government during the period in question. But I think you are misunderstanding the criteria for inclusion on those lists. The main sections of the LOSS pages are only for independent countries. The pages after 1950 have separate sections for dependent territories. I have been working on adding sections for dependent territories into earlier pages, but it takes a long time.

If you look at List of sovereign states in 2009, you'll see we treat modern territories the same way. The 193 independent countries are in one section, the ten unrecognized states are in another, and the remaining dependent territories are in a third. The Cook Islands and Niue are listed as dependencies of New Zealand, for example, even though they're self-governing associated states with a high degree of sovereignty.

I have tried to read your source, but Google Books doesn't have a preview available. However, a user on the Pacific War talk page seems to suggest that it doesn't actually contain any information that supports your claim. I can't confirm that one way or another, but it does seem odd that your main source is an obscure twenty-year-old international law text. Considering that we're dealing with a simple fact here (The date of the independence of the Philippines), I think it's much more reasonable to go with the widely accepted date of 4 July 1946.

Also, it makes it difficult to actually talk with you if you just move discussion threads off to your archive after 10 minutes. Orange Tuesday (talk) 18:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

23prootie, I just read your source. It doesn't actually conclude that the Philippines is a sovereign state, like you seem to be implying. It just provides the details of a case called "Bradford v. Chase National Bank of New York" from 1939, where the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York said that the Philippines was a sovereign state.

But there's something important that your source actually does say. At the top of the section in question, it classifies the Commonwealth of the Philippines under "Dependent States -- Protected and Vassal States". So basically the document you're citing actually supports what I'm saying, which is that the Philippines was a dependency, and should be listed with the other dependencies.

So on one hand we have this 70-year-old court decision from a district court in New York suggesting that the Commonwealth of the Philippines was a sovereign state. On the other hand, we have every other document I've been able to find -- including your own source -- saying that the Philippines wasn't independent until 4 July 1946. I think there's an overwhelming amount of evidence against you here.

I am going to revert your edits to the LOSS pages, in accordance with the sources I've given you before and the inclusion criteria of the lists themselves. Please do not re-add the Philippines to these pages unless you can find a source which states unambiguously that the Philippines was not a dependency of the United States between 1935 and 1946. Thank you. Orange Tuesday (talk) 20:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

That document specifically talks about recognizing the independence of the "Republic of the Philippines", which did not exist before 4 July 1946. The entity which declared independence in 1898 was the "Philippine Republic", and the entity which you are adding to the List of Sovereign States pages was the "Commonwealth of the Philippines". These are both different governments, and they both ceased to exist before this treaty took effect.

In addition, that document (which both the Philippines and the United States signed) states that the Philippines were ceded to the United States of America by Spain on December 10, 1898 [p. 10] and that the United States relinquished its sovereignty over the Philippines on July 4, 1946 [p. 4]. It follows that the United States had sovereignty over the Philippines between those two dates.

And finally, the treaty makes no mention of any earlier date or declaration of independence.

I'm sorry, 23prootie, but this document doesn't do anything to support your edits. The Philippines wasn't independent between 1935 and 1946. That's just a historical fact. Unless you can find something that actually explicitly says in no uncertain terms that the Philippines was independent between 1935 and 1946 and wasn't an American dependency, I'm going to ask you to please stop adding the country to the list. Orange Tuesday (talk) 22:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Here, think of it this way. By your logic, how did the Philippines gain independence in 1935? The United States didn't grant it to them. As you've shown, they didn't recognize Philippine independence until 1946. When they created the Commonwealth, it was explicitly supposed to be a step towards independence in 10 years. And Quezon didn't declare independence. He constantly demanded independence, yes, but he never issued any kind of official document or declaration claiming that the Philippines was an independent state.

So if the United States didn't give the Philippines independence and the Philippines didn't claim independence for themselves, then who gave them independence? How did they become independent in 1935? Orange Tuesday (talk) 23:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Quezon didn't need to declare independence since Aguinaldo already beat him to it in 1898. In the minds of most Filipinos they are already independent. And as long as the U.S. kept to its promise, which it did, they don't have to do anything but wait. The Commonwealth provided for self-rule, self-government, which may appear very close to actual independence.--23prootie (talk) 23:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Self-rule and self-government are CLOSE to independence but they're not independence. Bermuda is self-governing. Greenland is self-governing. Niue is self-governing. Puerto Rico is self-governing. None of these states are listed as independent on the lists. Because they're all dependencies, just like the Philippines was.

If the 1898 Declaration was still in effect, then why didn't you add the Philippines to any of the lists between 1901 and 1935? Because you're basing your edits on the self-governing status that the Commonwealth enjoyed. But that self-government was granted to the Commonwealth by the United States, and the United States explicitly stopped short of granting the Philippines independence or relinquishing its sovereignty until the Treaty of Manila in 1946.

If the Filipinos were already independent in their own minds, then why did they keep pushing for independence in the '30s and '40s after the Commonwealth was granted? Why did they demand something they already had?

The Philippines was not independent during this period. To claim otherwise is revisionist history. Orange Tuesday (talk) 23:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

But the difference between Greenland, Niue, Bermuda, and Puerto Rico over the Philippines is that they NEVER declared independence nor were they EVER POMISED independence within an lloted deadline. The Philippines both had that so we could always claim sovereignty. Besides there the other examples in history where a state can lose in sovereign status, like when Ireland was a part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland or when Armenia was a part of the Soviet Union yet no-one is debating the sovereign status of the Kingdom of Ireland and the Kingdom of Armenia.23prootie (talk) 17:21, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Ireland doesn't appear on the list from 1801 to 1919 and Armenia doesn't appear on the list from 1922 to 1990. Neither country shows up until the date where they re-established their independence. It doesn't matter how long Armenia was independent before it became a part of the Soviet Union, it doesn't matter how much Armenia wanted to be independent, it doesn't matter that we recognize Armenia as being independent now. The fact is, it stopped being independent when it became a part of the Soviet Union. That's it. There was no independent Armenia during that time period and it's not on the list as a result.

And a promise of independence is different than a granting of independence. Aruba is self-governing, and it was promised that it would get independence from the Netherlands in 1996. But that changed. Aruba didn't become independent, and even if it had, it wouldn't have been retroactively independent from the date when it got its autonomy. The Commonwealth of the Philippines was supposed to become independent after a transitional period of ten to twelve years. After. And that's what happened. Until that time, it was under the sovereignty of the United States. The fact that there was a Philippine declaration of independence decades earlier doesn't somehow eliminate their dependency status. The Commonwealth was created by the United States as a dependency. It wasn't given independence, and it never declared or even asserted independence. It wasn't until 1946 that the Republic of the Philippines became an independent country. No amount of wikipedia editing will change that.

Is it unfortunate and unjust that the people of the Philippines had to live under decades of colonial rule against their will? Of course it is. No one is saying that it isn't. But that's what happened. That's the reality, and the reality is what goes on the list. The people of Timor-Leste didn't particularly want to be a part of Indonesia either, but we can't go back and say that they were independent from the moment they declared independence. That's not how it works. There were decades of foreign rule in between 1975 and 2002.

Oh, and Puerto Rico declared independence in 1868. Orange Tuesday (talk) 17:55, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, Whatever. The Philippines became independent in 1898 not 1946. You asked me why I didn't list the country between 1901-1935 and you pretty much answered your question. Anyway, there was no precedent nor was there any situation that could prove Aruba had any form of sovereignty during that time unlike the Philippines which I am going to prove next week when I get unblocked. Besides, self-government is enough to be listed there in the case of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, and Newfoundland (interestingly all of them are white or white-ruled nations) before the Statute of Westminster in 1931.--23prootie (talk) 05:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Philippines under the United States

I note that you have previously been blocked for this kind of non-consensual and patriotically biased behaviour.

History is not something to be rewritten according to temporary politics and feelings. We can't change facts. At the time, the Philippines had more independence than (say) India, but the US had the final word in military and foreign affairs.

It is as though you think being part of someone else's empire is something to be ashamed of, an unpleasant notion that must be erased. But I don't think it is shameful -- hardly surprising since I am Australian.

And, by the way, what makes you think I am white? ;-)

Grant | Talk 06:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Historically speaking, the Philippines declared independence in 1898 yet they have to endure half a century of U.S. domination. So is that shameful. Of course. --23prootie (talk) 17:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

WW 2 Casualties Reliable Sources are needed-Not anonymous web pages

The link does not support the figure of 1 million that you posted, it has no source and is worthless on Wikipedia. We can only use reliabe sources that can be verified. Please give us a source in print that can be verified to back up that number, I have a hunch that it is correct, but we need a scholarly source that we can cite, not an anonymous web page. Please take the time to become familiar with this important Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:Reliable sources Thanks --Woogie10w (talk) 01:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I plan to do research on WW2 in your country at the New York Public Library in order to get a reliable source for casualties. I found the following in the library catalouge and will check it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:23prootie&action=edit&section=2 Title World War II in the Philippines / by Generoso P. Salazar, Fernando R. Reyes, Leonardo Q. Nuval. Imprint Manila : Veterans Federation of the Philippines, c1993-1996.

Regards--Woogie10w (talk) 14:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

THanks. I found a book online. Maybe this could help. The Philippines: America's forgotten friends- By Geoffrey Bocca--23prootie (talk) 22:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I will check to see if this book supports the figure of 1 million, it is in the New York Public Library, it seems to be a childrens book. --Woogie10w (talk) 23:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Three new books that are probably not children's books:

• The Philippines By James K. Boyce, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Development Centre
• World War II Pacific island guide By Gordon L. Rottman
• The political economy of growth and impoverishment in the Marcos era By James K. Boyce

I think there's enough consensus that a million people did die.--23prootie (talk) 00:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I will check those sources, as well as others in the New York Public Library.We need to verify the figure of 1 million, we need to see it in print--Woogie10w (talk) 01:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The State Department also have the million thing. Anyway, the casualties listed are only for the Battle of Manila and the Battle of Bataan. They do not include casualties inflicted during Japanese occupation so maybe that's where you should look.--23prootie (talk) 07:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring

Please note that I have reported your renewed edit warring. The report is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:23prootie reported by User:Nick-D (Result: ) Nick-D (talk) 08:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for edit warring at Pacific War

I've blocked you for a month for edit warring at Pacific War. You seem to have an obsession over this and no interest in consensus. If you can come to some agreement over how to meaningfully discuss this, accept consensus, and maybe accept you aren't going to get your way over this, then I can unblock you. If you're just going to insist on this edit, then you should regard this block as essentially indefinite William M. Connolley (talk) 10:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

{{Unblock|I do admit that I may have an unhealthy obsession on this topic and I apologize for that. Still, I feel the need to have a say since I feel my country has been inadequately represented due to its status or lack therefore. I do try to discuss my side meaningfully (as you may have seen in the talk pages) and avoid edit wars and blocks and I would continue to try to do so in the future. Regardless, I think I would back out for now since the consensus seems against me. I know I am on a sinking and I plan to move on and avoid that page indefinitely.}}

As a note for the admin reviewing this block, it relates to a report I made at: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:23prootie reported by User:Nick-D (Result: 1 month) and 23prootie's recent edit warring on this issue extends beyond the Pacific War article and is a recurrence of the exact behavior which led to them being blocked in February (with a block extension after they tried to use sock puppet accounts to continue warring) and a week ago. Nick-D (talk) 10:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that the blocking in February should have any bearing on this block given that months have elapsed after that. I also feel that any comments by Nick-D should be disregarded since he represents the opposing side to the debate and is simply fuming the flames with the political motivations to have me blocked indefinitely.--23prootie (talk) 10:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I am also going to take note that the week-long blocking should not have happened since the discussion here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive551#User:23prootie_edit_warring_again was not resolved and the the block was a mere collaboration with Yellow_Monkey. --23prootie (talk) 11:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

That block was upheld by three different admins when you appealed it claiming that User:YellowMonkey (who is a former member of the Arbitration Committee) is biased against you and procedure wasn't followed: [4], [5], [6]. Nick-D (talk) 11:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that they should be counted as three rejections but instead just one. The first admin was Australian so he basically came from the opinion pool while the second, I basically gave a stupid reason why it was rejected so only the third only counts. Anyway, I am sorry for "edit warring" and I got punished for that but it is completely unfair and un-classy to be consistently harassed and abused by admins such as User:Nick-D, who seems to enjoy poking at dead horse. Anyway, despite this I feel I still made reasonable edits such as that in the Casualties of World War II.--23prootie (talk) 11:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you stop arguing over the minutae of past blocks - I'm not interested. If you want to be unblocked, I'd like an unambiguous and unqualified statement that you'll leave the thing alone William M. Connolley (talk) 21:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I promise specifically and unambiguously leave the template at the top of the Pacific War page alone. There happy.--23prootie (talk) 22:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Not really, no. I'm not really convinced that you understand. But I'll unblock you anyway, on condition that you leave this conversation on your talk page, and be aware that your edits will be watched. Anything looking like edit warring will get you blocked again William M. Connolley (talk) 07:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

magandang umaga

Thanks for pointing out that needed correction at WW2 Casualties--Woogie10w (talk) 11:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. I happy someone finally listened. ;).--23prootie (talk) 11:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

btw. It's nighttime in Manila.--23prootie (talk) 11:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I listened only after you provided a reliable source, not the childrens book!!!--Woogie10w (talk) 15:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Unblock?

Am I still blocked?--23prootie (talk) 06:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Try editing you'll find out William M. Connolley (talk) 11:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

WW 2 casualties

WW2 famine did not affect Pakistan only Bengal area of India--Woogie10w (talk) 21:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

OK sorry.--23prootie (talk) 21:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

No need to be sorry, also famine did not affect Laos and Cambodia, only Vietnam--Woogie10w (talk) 21:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC) Wow. So Cambodia and Laos were pretty lucky. Good for them!--23prootie (talk) 23:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

It affected northern Vietnam Vietnamese Famine of 1945--Woogie10w (talk) 23:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey, the Bengal Famine of 1943 did affect the area now known as Bangladesh so I think it should be noted. As for Pakistan maybe some of the military casualties are from there?--23prootie (talk) 23:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Stop this.

You adding a lot of nonsense to the WW2 Allies page. Please verify the information you are inserting and be careful. Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 07:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Just read more on the subject please, especially about the Soviet Union.--Jacurek (talk) 07:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm reading.--23prootie (talk) 07:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 07:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I really hate it that you people now turned me into a collaborator. Fine, I'm going to behave!!! #(--23prootie (talk) 08:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

--Woogie10w (talk) 12:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)== World War Two Casualties-Need to use Talk page ==

Before you make any changes to the numbers please discuss on talk page. Please read the footnote for the USSR, that figure of 26.6 million duplicates casualties in Poland, Rumania and the Baltic States. Again please discuss any changes to be made, thanks--Woogie10w (talk) 10:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC) You need a source for any changes, that is the rule on Wikipedia. --Woogie10w (talk) 12:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Please Discuss Changes on Talk Page

We need to discuss your changes--Woogie10w (talk) 14:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

That page is too long, I prefer to have the discussion here.--23prootie (talk) 14:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

What pages in Japans Imperial War can we cite for:

India:?

Korea?

Indochina?

Indonesia?

I need to verifify the numbers, I can get the book--Woogie10w (talk) 14:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe we should use John W. Dower's numbers. Who is Werner Gruhl? --Woogie10w (talk) 14:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Who is Werner Gruhl?

Werner Gruhl, author of Imperial Japan's World War Two 1931-1945, is former chief of NASA's Cost and Economic Analysis Branch with a lifetime interest in the study of the First and Second World Wars. He is an active member of the UN Association.

Whi is John W. Dower a recognized scholar in the field, Werner Gruhl is an war buff, not a scholar. Werner Gruhl is not a reliable source. --Woogie10w (talk) 16:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Did you get this from Google books?--Woogie10w (talk) 14:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Philippines Casualties

Your Source says Philippines Casualties were 527,000 [7]. You are picicking only the highest number from this source that is obvious.--Woogie10w (talk) 16:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Please respond @ Talk:World War II casualties# Werner Gruhl

I have started a thread on the Talk:World War II casualties# Werner Gruhl talk page re your recent posts. I would appreciate your comments --Woogie10w (talk) 17:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC) Please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources, we should use a reliable academic sources, not the source with the higest number. We need the correct figure, not the higest. Please read the footnotes on World War Two Casualties, they explain the sources that back up the numbers. --Woogie10w (talk) 20:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I would appreciate your comments regarding the use of sources in this case

Thanks --Woogie10w (talk) 23:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Blocked again

You've been edit warring at World War II casualties, despite my prior warnings and your promises to be good. Further, you have made no attempt to discuss your reverts - or even marked them as reverts - preferring instead flippant comments such as this [8]. So I've blocked you for 2 weeks to give you a chance to think this over William M. Connolley (talk) 09:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Ramiele Malubay and others

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated articles are Ramiele Malubay, Camile Velasco. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to the relevant discussion pages: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ramiele Malubay for Ramiele Malubay, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camile Velasco for Camile Velasco. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 02:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of characters in SaGa Frontier

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of characters in SaGa Frontier. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of characters in SaGa Frontier. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Pinoy pop

Hello 23prootie, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Pinoy pop - a page you tagged - because: The reason given is not a valid speedy deletion criterion. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Religion entry in overseas Filipino infobox

Recruitment of migrant workers is not an undifferentiated process in which every single destination country draws from all over the Philippines among every ethnic and religious group. Different countries have different recruitment agencies or government bodies which prefer to recruit in one region or another and to pick and reject migrants based on a variety of criteria. Similarly, migrants may choose to pick one country or another based on any number of factors --- wages might be the most important, but social factors are another. Migrants may convert to another religion after their arrival in a destination country (even if they came with no intention of permanent settlement and thus feel no interest to adapt to their host country, their intention may change after arrival).

Network/founder effects are another reason why the religious profile of migrants might differ significantly from the source country --- completely independent from the religious environment of the destination country. (The most common example of this is how Korean Americans are 70% Christian, even though South Korea is no more than 25% Christian --- what happens is that new Buddhist or non-religious immigrants begin attending church simply as a social activity, to access support networks).

In short, it's extremely faulty to assume that Filipino migrant workers in any country will exactly reflect the religious demographics of the Philippines --- which is what you are implying when you list all those religions in that exact order in each of the infoboxes. cab (talk) 00:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Huh?--23prootie (talk) 00

58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

All recruitment agencies may be open to people of any religion, but that does not mean that all countries are going to get members of all religious groups. OFWs can choose to accept a position in a destination country or not. And similarly, destination countries have absolute control over visa issuance and deportation --- power which in practise will be exercised in a discriminatory fashion. This does not "obviously result in the mirroring of the demographic inside and outside the country". To assume this is the exact example of original research.

One type of source which has been useful in other articles about migrant groups is directory listings of expatriate religious services and groups. These are published by embassies, migrant associations, foreigners' newspapers, expat life guides, etc. These aren't perfect sources, since they still can't be used to draw conclusions about what religions predominate, but at minimum they establish what religions are practised in reasonable numbers among the migrant group actually in the country in question, which the Department of State report absolutely does not do. cab (talk) 01:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I have referred the matter to the relevant WikiProjects for third opinions. I am not the one who needs to prove that a statement about religions should not be included in those articles. The "default hypothesis" is a one sentence article that says "There may or may not be Filipinos in Libya". Anything that is added to that --- statistics, descriptive statements, etc. --- needs to be prove by sources (not by inferences and deductions). And you, as the one who is inserting this material, needs to be the one who proves it. If nothing specific can be said, it is better not to insert any material at all, not to insert original research. This is official Wikipedia policy: WP:BURDEN.

And I have no idea what you mean by "stick to the subject matter where you have expertise". I have written and expanded over a hundred articles about migrant populations all over the world --- I don't see that you have written a single one at all. But more importantly, anyone who can follow policy and interpret sources properly is free to add or remove information from Wikipedia articles. cab (talk) 01:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Death and funeral of Corazon Aquino

The article is *not* eligible for DYK. It must be expanded by 5X from its previous length in order to qualify. The expansion of the prose text was not even 2x, so the article is not eligible. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

To be considered as a "new" article, it must be no more than 5 days old (please read the rules). By the time it was nominated, the article was 9 days old already, so it could not qualify as a "new" article under the DYK Rules. It could only be considered as an exansion at that time, and the expansion was insufficient. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

But the length of time it spent on the Articles ofr deletion should have been taken on account since it hindered it from being nominated for DYK or ITN. Since it was nominated immediately after it was created, it should have been treated as a new article only when that nomination expired. --23prootie (talk) 19:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand your comment. The article was nominated on the 10th, but was created on the 1st. So, it was nominated 9 days after creation, which is well after after the 5 day period for DYK to consider an article "new". Nothing prevented it from being nominated, only from being selected while the AfD occurred. Sorry, but the delay has indeed made the article ineligible under our Rules. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Note: you are now nearly in violation of WP:3RR, and might be blocked. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Ninoy Aquino Day

Hello! Your submission of Ninoy Aquino Day at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath Padron:T:TDYK and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! orangefreak³³ 15:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Pinoy pop

The AfD finished. Do you think it should be retitled to Original Pilipino Music? Are there other changes needed? Cheers. Have a nice weekend. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Templates for deletion nomination of Template:East Asians in the UK

Template:East Asians in the UK has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Mishavonna Henson

An article that you have been involved in editing, Mishavonna Henson, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mishavonna Henson. Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Aspects (talk) 21:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)