User talk:JournalmanManila

The navbox Template:Southeast Asian leaders should only contain links to leaders of Southeast Asian countries that held the position of Head of State and Head of Government. Let me remind you that the monarchs of individual fragmented pre-colonial states did not represent or head the nation of the Philippines except their own little islands/regions. See also Heads of state and government of the Philippines and similar lists for Southeast Asian countries.--RioHondo (talk) 13:54, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

• I see Philippine history had a complicated part Specially on this matter they are fragmented pre-colonial states, But Although they are many individual fragmented pre-colonial states ,these societies that scattered in the islands would be later become the Philippines, That means They are inside the Philippine archipelago, they are Philippines nor part of the Philippines history, What makes the Philippines today is because We had been started from these states and barangays etc..(except for its name which given by Magellan by looking the Philippines article), And does your message or the message of any members here are allowed to be remove?(JournalmanManila (talk) 03:31, 11 August 2016 (UTC))

Irrelevant. That is like saying the emperors and Dalai Lamas of Tibet were leaders or heads of state/government of China. Or that the British Governors of Hong Kong, the Portuguese Governors of Macau or Islamic leaders of Xinjiang were also leaders of China just because they existed within the present-day territory of the People's Republic of China. You have a skewed view of history just like User:Philipandrew2.--RioHondo (talk) 05:02, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Alright take it easy , i got what you trying to say, let it be this time Happy editing! (JournalmanManila (talk) 05:54, 11 August 2016 (UTC))

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Religion in pre-colonial Philippines, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nandi. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

• Done (JournalmanManila (talk) 09:25, 11 August 2016 (UTC))

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Timeline of Philippine history, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kalinga. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from one or more pages into Tondo (historical state). While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:22, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

• • I see, thank you for your advise, i will review my edits.(JournalmanManila (talk) 01:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC))
    • I see you are still not adding the required attribution, as required under the terms of the CC-by-SA license. Please have a look at this edit summary as an example of how it is done. Please let me know if you still don't understand what to do or why we have to do it. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:22, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
    • I see you are still not adding the required attribution, as required under the terms of the CC-by-SA license. Copying from one article another without providing the required attribution is a copyright violation. Please begin fulfilling this mandatory legal requirement, or you risk being blocked from editing. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:32, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Timeline of Philippine history, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages San Agustin Church and Aetas. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:52, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Philippine Revolutionary Army

added links pointing to Amigo and El Presidente

Tondo (historical state)

added a link pointing to Tondo

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:21, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Escape Orbit. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Hypocrisy have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:52, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

History of the Philippines

added a link pointing to Ayutthaya

Philippines

added a link pointing to Ayutthaya

Tondo (historical state)

added a link pointing to Ayutthaya

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:43, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello JournalmanManila, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to Tondo (historical state) has had to be removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. /wiae /tlk 15:17, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Mandala (political model)

added a link pointing to Laguna

Timeline of Philippine sovereignty

added a link pointing to Kalinga

Tondo (historical state)

added a link pointing to Balut

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:48, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of empires, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tondo. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:46, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Olongapo into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. It looks like you've copied content from Olongapo, Don (honorific) and possibly other pages into Filipino styles and honorifics. While it's alright to do so, please remember that you have to attribute the text for copyright purposes. The sample attribution in the boilerplate text above suffices for this purpose.

Thanks, /wiae /tlk 14:02, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi JournalmanManila.

First of all, thank you for you interest in Wikipedia. You've been doing a lot of editing, and that's a good thing. We could use the help. That said, I feel that since we keep running into each other on Philippine Pre-history and Proto-history articles, I need to express some concerns about the accuracy and verifiability of some of your edits.

I have two major reminders

1 Please make sure all your facts are supported by sources. The wikipedia policies relevant to this are Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. As much as possible, please do this for EVERY fact, because sometimes a difference of a single letter can spark controversy. A good guide is Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources

2 Please be very very careful to never engage in speculation. I've noticed that you like to "complete" articles by adding as much information as possible, using interpretations of the facts based on what seems to make sense (what might seem like "logical conclusions"). I understand the appeal of having answers to questions (how big was Tondo's territory? What did its flag look like?). It's WHY I'm on wikipedia, myself; because these questions are begging for answers. But the answers have to be scholarly, or we might be misleading researchers, especially those just beginning in a field. The relevant guidelines for this are in Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material and Wikipedia:Fringe theories.

• A good example of this is a map. My expertise is the southern banks of Laguna de Bay so I'll use that. In ancient times, the territory called "Mainit" was once a territory (Sheniak, David & Anita Feleo, "Rizal and Laguna: Lakeside Sister Provinces", in Alejandro, Reyndaldo Gamboa, Laguna de Bay: The Living Lake. 2002) of the ancient town of Vahi (Jocano, F.L., Filipino Worldview. 2001.), circa 1500. Today, Mainit is known as "Los Baños." (Ibid.) But the "Mainit" described in literature was a small area on the shores of the Dampalit river; the modern town of Los Baños is a much bigger entity. If you make a map shows that all of the Barangays in modern Los Baños were a part of Mainit, some of that may not be accurate. If someone finds a hoard of artifacts in Barangay Lalakay and dates it back to 1500, and looks at your map, he may conclude that the artifacts must have belonged to someone associated with Bay. Except we aren't ABSOLUTELY sure about that. For all we know, Barangay Lalakay could once have been under the administration of Calamba. Or even Biñan, depending on the era. Just because Lalakay is part of modern day LB doesn't mean it was definitely under Mainit, and therefore under Bay. The person doing the research will find NO OTHER SOURCE claiming otherwise, and will therefore tend to attribute the find to the people of protohistoric Bay, when in fact, it could have just as easily been artifacts from protohistoric Biñan. (Er, if you know the area, this is sorta moot, since Lalakay is a walking distance from the Dampalit River in Barangay Anos. But the point is, WE CAN'T SPECULATE.) - Alternativity (talk) 04:11, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

• Also, please take note that even if this discussion is just on your TALK PAGE, I looked up two references (not to mention I spent YEARS trying to acquire a copy of the Alejandro book) , consulted three maps (a contemporary political one, a geographical gradient map from NAMRIA, and google earth), and agonized over what constitutes "walking distance." It took me an entire hour to write that paragraph; I must reiterate the request for similar thoroughness.

3. My last note isn't a reminder in the strict sense, because it's a very specific appliction of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view: to avoid distorting anthropologically estabilsh-able facts, is it possible for us to try NOT to view historical details through a modern lens? This is why this is important to me: because I'm writing a novel I've spent the last fifteen years trying to piece together an idea of what day-to-day life was like in prehistoric (Pre-700AD) Southern Tagalog. (Which means I have to look at proto-historic [700-1560s] descriptions/sources. And I'm trying to undo pre-concieved notions of, say, the powers of a "king", or the obligations of a "slave." That's as important to my plot as knowing that there were no Guava trees in pre-colonial Philippines (I don't use the term "pre-colonial" lightly) and therefore protohistoric warriors could not have used Guava leaves as an antiseptic. Now, don't get me wrong: Wikipedia shouldn't be written like a technical journal. But all I ask is that articles NOT contain anything that is NOT TRUE, or NOT PROVABLE. I think Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Verifiability support my position there.

So.... there. This note has taken me four hours to write. Please, can we come to an agreement about the importance of precision and accuracy?

Thank you! - Alternativity (talk) 04:11, 4 November 2016 (UTC)