User talk:Theseeker2016

Kingdom of Tondo

Kamusta, fellow Filipino Wikipedian! Yeah, I noticed that as well. I contributed much on Kingdom of Tondo page for months, as well as JournalManila, but I saw that the infobox gets removed because of "speculation" and lack of sources. There were sources on those information based on LCI and some other historians who discussed the Kingdom of Tondo. He shouldn't remove those just by what he thinks. He should consulted this instead first. He probably wanted to ruin the page since it was well made. But if you see it getting removed again, please restore it. Salamat. Darwgon0801 (talk) 14:41, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Yes i should ! thanks for patrolling the page, I think we should keep on monitoring the Kingdom of Tondo for it might be reverted again or vandalized without checking the valid references cited, the Strictnina branded the references cited as "bullshit" and unreliable i guess that's only the users personal beliefs so we should keep in patrolling along with the articles under the coverage of the Pre colonial epoch so ..there , happy editing !(Theseeker2016 (talk) 09:54, 11 April 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Kingdom of Tondo and your continuous undoing of editing

I'm going to remove the dubious parts of the "Kingdom of Tondo" article. Speculations are reserved for blogs, not in Wikipedia pages. I'm going to suggest you refrain from undoing the edits so that the article can improve its credibility. Stricnina (talk) 08:20, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I support Stricnina on this, the article needs a clean-up, please don't derail the article clean-up with continuous reverts.Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 09:04, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I against There were sources on those information based on LCI (a 900 AD doccuments mentioned the names of ministers and rulers mentioned) , and some books based on the works of , Inquirer, Anton Podsma , Nick Joaquin and Jaime F. Tiongson, W.H. Scot, Luis Camara Dery, by Grace Odal Devora, IIRC and Ambeth Ocampo. and supported by the Documents regarding the India (Sanskrit) Chinese influence (from Chinese / and Spanish accounts) (WP:Verifiability) and also the what you called Blogs(although it had a backed sources support with the anthropologist/researchers i mentioned) are reliable for secondary and tertiary sources! other than the Artifacts of uniform cultures in Luzon (Except Pangasinan (Caboloan)). So Why I will refrain ? even the reliable sources are not reliable for User:Stricnina. As of you , i think its a type of Personal (the way you removing infobox in the page without consent or any reason is a form of Violation , Personal views cannot be accepted here in wikipedia) hope you understand. to remind you all that wikipedia is not a democracy. indeed its academic. (Theseeker2016 (talk) 10:16, 15 April 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Theseeker2016, I am not against citing Nick Joaquin and Ambeth Ocampo. I am against citing sources that are written by anonymous authors in the Internet. I have specifically addressed the dubious sources in this section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kingdom_of_Tondo#TheSeeker2016_and_friends_should_REFRAIN_from_undoing_edits._Thank_you. I'll soon be removing dubious content in the absence of academic/peer-reviewed content. Speculations should be removed from the Wikipedia page. I'll be giving you (and everyone else) the time to supply the appropriate sources. In the absence of sources, in the future I'll be removing them one by one, starting with Rajah Alon. Stricnina (talk) 10:23, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You cant remove anything until the sources have consensus WP:Consensus (Theseeker2016 (talk) 10:34, 15 April 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Theseeker2016, the article will require a clean-up either way, so I'll repeat what you have just said: facts do not need consensus and "wikipedia is not a democracy" (your words). I suggest improvement of the credibility of the webpage. Stricnina (talk) 10:48, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Theseeker2016, I am NOT contesting the existence of the Kingdom of Tondo. Ancient Tondo exists. I am ONLY against the claims WITHOUT academic verification in the Wikipedia article. Speculations should be removed from Wikipedia, whether you like it or not. The quality of the page is abysmal, and I'm appalled by the fact that I'm the only one noticing the very low quality of the page and its sources. Stricnina (talk) 10:52, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stricnina, most of those sources are provided by JournalmanManila, who has been trying to improve the page for months/years. He also created the map for Tondo, which is based on LCI, Antoon Postma, works of William Henry Scott. This page was a mess and less in infos when the first time I went to this page. I've been editing on this page for months, witnessing him providing more information to the page and I admit, I asked to myself, where did he get those information? Especially to those who ruled Tondo (not all). And as you say, most of them are taken down, which probably have existed something before they were nothing. You can talk to JournalmanManila to provide reliable sources but he has been blocked from editing as of now, because of copyright issues. Darwgon0801 (talk) 17:51, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Darwgon0801, I have specifically removed the map because I have read W.H. Scott's works and the works about LCI and there were no statements about Rajah Alon nor the expansion of the Kingdom of Tondo to Ilocos and Bicol. All of this stuff came from a blog written by an anonymous author with no citations from scholarly sources: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/philippines/history-tondo.htm . Wikipedia should NOT tolerate such sources. I invite you and your friends to NOT restore that specific map since it is fictitious with no proper sources or verification. I'll be soon deleting Rajah Alon and every other fictitious characters mentioned in that unsourced and unreliable blog. Stricnina (talk) 18:18, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Darwgon0801 (talk) 19:24, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No one can remove any main parts of the page without a proper WP:CONSENSUS unless it is formed we're watching you. (Theseeker2016 (talk) 02:55, 16 April 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Don't worry, Theseeker2016. I'll give you your "consensus" when I actually start citing academic books instead of 404 sites and anonymous blogs. Right now, the page is full of speculations and you should STOP interfering with the cleanup. All uncited statements, original research and unfounded images will be deleted on my watch and if you engage with me in an edit war, so be it. Stricnina (talk) 06:23, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If i find out you remove a substantial information I will restore it so ..a resounding Yes! (Theseeker2016 (talk) 00:58, 17 April 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Old Tagalog, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Beast. 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) 09:51, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem at Bayonet

Hello Theseeker2016. Please be aware that your recent edit to the Bayonet article has been flagged as a copyright violation by the CopyPatrol program operated by the Wikimedia Foundation. The tool states that 90% of your edit (142 words) are taken directly from http://worldbayonets.com/Bayonet_Identification_Guide/philippines/philippines.html. Please look over the material you added and try to rewrite it in your own words, to be sure that WP:COPYVIO is followed. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 03:18, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

oh apology , i will check the copyright status of the source nextime.(Theseeker2016 (talk) 03:29, 21 May 2017 (UTC))[reply]

May 2017

Your addition to List of Filipino inventions and discoveries has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:49, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Women in the Philippines

I see that you added some information from this http://www.filipiknow.net/life-in-pre-colonial-philippines/ source] to Women in the Philippines. I am happy to see that you added a reference. However, material such as this should normally be written in your own words. In some rare cases (and I don't think this exception applies here), it may be appropriate to include an exact quote from a source but in those cases the material should be enclosed in quote marks or block quotes.--S Philbrick (Talk) 13:51, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 2017

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:39, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not okay for you to get blocked for copyright violations, wait a few days, and then create a new account to evade the block. This is called sockpuppetry and it is not permitted. If you wish to apply for unblock, please do so at your first account, not this one. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Theseeker2016 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

why you doing this to me plus i know that you will never take it easy on me im sure no matter how much i plea here plus aside from cc accusations are...i already know why you doing this :) Theseeker2016 (talk) 10:43, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:06, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.