Mlgc1998

Welcome!

Hello, Mlgc1998, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!--Biografer (talk) 18:40, 23 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello. I have reverted your edits since Kürassier, AMX-13, Patagón, M-41 etc aren't main battle tanks (which is all that belongs in the list), but light tanks, while the TAM/Tanque Medio Argentino, as the name implies, is a medium tank. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 13:21, 10 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hello. I have reverted your edit to Philippine Hokkien, as it was unsourced and seemed like vandalism. Please remember to use edit summaries. Thank you.

– Lauritz Thomsen (talk) 11:25, 15 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

• Hello. You have still not provided a source. Please do so. I apologize, since it appears that you are editing in good faith, but your edit seems like vandalism when it has no source. – Lauritz Thomsen (talk) 11:31, 15 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm MarkH21. I noticed that you added or changed content in several articles, but you didn't provide reliable sources. If you'd like to include citations and add them, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. — MarkH21 (talk) 21:17, 8 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Is this about the ones in Philippine Hokkien? ok, I will link each entry to entries from wiktionary and their dictionary sources--Mlgc1998 (talk) 21:34, 8 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

This is in general, and includes your edits to Philippine Mandarin (e.g. these edits), Philippine Hokkien, Filipino name, and the categorization of dozens of Filipinos whose articles do not mention Chinese descent at all. Your edits to Wikipedia must be sourced and absolutely cannot contain original research, per Wikipedia policies. — MarkH21 (talk) 21:56, 8 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

The Philippine Mandarin edits you linked are not new information, those are pinyin diacritics, the alternate more common name of Min Nan Yu is Hokkien, and Hokaglish is a pidgin language. If you haven't guessed already, I myself am Chinese Filipino, who has personally experienced Philippine Hokkien, Philippine Mandarin, Chinese Filipino family names all his life. These are commonly known information if you knew about life in the Philippines. What common Filipino reader would know what Min Nan Yu means as opposed to Hokkien or Fukien that they have always heard it as. How am I supposed to source every common information I add about Chinese Filipino life in the Philippines? Do you need me to have to write research papers or start a web blog to post every info on every little thing before I can say wikipedia should inform about such prevalent phenomena? Those dozens of Filipinos do not have mention on their paragraphs themselves about Chinese descent, but all of those I categorized as Filipino politicians of Chinese descent were already categorized as Filipinos of Chinese descent. The others have parents with pages categorized as Filipinos of Chinese descent, then of course what does that make them. I have not randomly categorized any Filipino person's page as Filipino of Chinese descent without any of these. The Marcos family and all the pages about them themselves used to be categorized as Filipinos of Chinese descent, yet all trace of that is gone and I have done nothing to try to add those back despite it being something that people around the Philippines has always discussed.--Mlgc1998 (talk) 13:24, 9 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I linked the wrong edits. I meant these. In any case, yes substantial new information that you add, even if "commonly known information if you knew about life in the Philippines," must be sourced. You don't need to write a paper yourself, but you must find one that supports what you are adding. Verifiability and no original research are two of the three core content policies on which Wikipedia is built. Even if you know something to be true, other people checking Wikipedia must be able to check that it comes from a reliable source.
These comments applies equally to the categorization of Filipinos of Chinese descent. Sure, you may know them to be of Chinese descent, but you must provide evidence on the articles themselves from reliable sources. Otherwise, your contributions are open to challenge and removal. — MarkH21 (talk) 19:56, 9 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Found some papers for that page. Also on the categorization again, I only added pages into the categorization of "Filipino politicians of Chinese descent" as listed already on pages categorized beforehand as "Filipino people of Chinese descent" or vice versa. I did not categorize any of those based on just because I externally knew them to be of Chinese descent. They were already listed by someone else that they were "Filipino people of Chinese descent". What I only did was, open that list of people categorized as "Filipino people of Chinese descent" and the list for "Filipino politicians of Chinese descent", then checked who was a politician or was included in the politician list but not on the other, then I added them to that category for consistency. The only few pages that I did add "Filipino people of Chinese descent" or both that and "Filipino politicians of Chinese descent" are the pages who were related by family to someone who was already categorized as "Filipino people of Chinese descent". I have not added anything new that wikipedia has not already told me about.--Mlgc1998 (talk) 11:36, 10 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

That would be fine, but doesn't this edit, for example, involve you adding "Category:Filipino people of Chinese descent" to the article? Furthermore, there is not sourced Chinese descent mentioned on the page. — MarkH21 (talk) 15:42, 10 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Yeah that one is one of the ones I was referring to being related to someone who was already categorized as one. Tito Sotto was already listed under Filipino politicians of Chinese descent so I added him to Filipino people of Chinese descent as well, then I added his brother, Vic Sotto, and his grandfather and namesake(Vicente Sotto) to Filipino people of Chinese descent. The grandfather, Vicente Sotto, is actually where you can see where the Chinese descent came in. His mother, Pascuala Yap, is a Chinese Filipino since Yap is a Chinese Filipino family, that's why the grandfather's full name is Vicente Sotto y Yap. Marcelino Sotto himself, the father of Vicente Sotto, is from Binondo, as can be seen in Filemon Sotto's page(his brother). Binondo is Manila's Chinatown, the oldest chinatown in the world.--Mlgc1998 (talk) 16:02, 10 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

I'm not disputing that Vicente Sotto y Yap is of Chinese descent, but here is exactly where the problem is. Even though we can all see the apparent circumstantial evidence that he is of Chinese descent via his mother's surname and his father's hometown, it is not explicitly referenced to a reliable source and therefore not acceptable on WP. You must find a reliable source stating somehow that he is of Chinese descent - not that his parents have names and hometowns that suggest he's most likely of Chinese descent. — MarkH21 (talk) 16:30, 10 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Philippines–Vietnam relations, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vietnamese (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 07:33, 13 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Boxer Codex, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Spaniards in the Philippines (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:49, 20 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

  Hello Mlgc1998, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your additions to List of monarchs of Laos have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

• 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 the 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 legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse 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 must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also 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. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:19, 22 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ethnic groups in the Philippines, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chinese citizen (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:25, 3 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

  Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from one or more pages into Ethnic groups in the Philippines. 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. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:33, 3 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

  Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. — Marchjuly (talk) 23:17, 10 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

You seem to be marking pretty much all of your edits as minor. Perhaps you’re unintentionally doing this, but many of your edits are not minor and therefore shouldn’t be being marked as such. If you’re unfamiliar with how Wikipedia defines a “minor edit”, please refer to the Wikipedia help page on minor edits linked to above. —- Marchjuly (talk) 23:22, 10 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

 

Thank you for uploading File:Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Logo.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.

Also:

• File:Universiti Putra Malaysia Logo.png

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 13 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

 

Thanks for uploading File:Universiti Putra Malaysia Full Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:55, 21 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

 

Thanks for uploading File:Pangasinense People.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:File copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 19:00, 24 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

After our lengthy discussion in September, I will just give one more warning about adding unsourced material to articles. Adding unsourced material, such as in this edit, is against Wikipedia policy. Please stop or further actions regarding your account may follow. — MarkH21 (talk) 01:07, 25 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

I've already linked a wiktionary page to that. The link is right there. --Mlgc1998 (talk) 01:12, 25 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

The link does not count as giving a reliable source for the statement because:

1. The linked Wiktionary page doesn’t mention any etymological original in the Tagalog word.
2. Wiktionary is not a reliable source, as defined here. It is user-generated content, like WP.

The second point is even more important than the first. — MarkH21 (talk) 01:17, 25 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

 

Thank you for uploading File:Coat of Arms of Universiti Putra Malaysia.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 27 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of common Chinese surnames, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kyrgyz (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:04, 27 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

 

A tag has been placed on Category:Tipos del País requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:10, 6 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Youtiao, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bicho (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:50, 10 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:59, 23 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

List of loanwords in Tagalog (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Bicho

Youtiao (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Bicho

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:46, 15 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

 

Thanks for uploading File:Enrique K. Razon.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:26, 6 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Dear Mlgc1998, I've checked the recent entries you have added in the Hokkien section of the List of loanwords in Tagalog and I've deleted the following entries for the simple reason that they do not have sources (hence they will be considered original research which are not allowed in Wikipedia due to the verifiability policy being enforced here):

• wakas (proposed etymology to Hok. 換捒 not supported by source);
• kapwa (proposed etymology to Hok. 佮我 not supported by source);

Feel free to reinstate them only when you have reliable sources that can be used to support your claims. Stricnina (talk) 17:19, 3 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

I feel as if the said person deleted too much of the history section of the Philippines especially the Islamic era, even though I agree with him that the article is excessively detailed, I also feel that the said deleted portions were crucial and necessary, can you chime in on this? Thanks!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Philippines#PH_0447's_deletions_of_many_Islamic_era_history_paragraphs

 

Thanks for uploading File:Roberto Ongpin.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 00:33, 16 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

 

Thanks for uploading File:Roberto Ongpin.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:45, 16 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Scarborough Shoal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mandarin.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:12, 22 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

  Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Chinese Filipino 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. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk🌴Help out at CCI!} 17:17, 3 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Chinese Filipino, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chinese nationality.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 27 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Here, I've just partially reverted your edit here. I haven't looked at the portions which I have not revertedl. You might want to take another look yourself. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:11, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

 

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Pangasinense People.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sennecaster (What now?) 19:02, 20 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sangley, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chinese.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 29 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

 

Thanks for uploading File:VNU-HCM Full Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:53, 8 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

  Your edit to Philippine Hokkien has been removed in whole or in part, 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 very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 14:45, 22 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Diannaa: I understand the concern you bring here, but if you have time to leave these messages and remove whole edits, would you at least consider reading the source itself, a good part of it was indeed rephrased rather than the above implication. Also, there's a better way in being constructive yourself with the courtesy in simply rephrasing the text yourself as per WP:BOLD, if one is concerned about copyrighted material, otherwise one is also committing disruptive editing by impeding the building or improving of an article that has long lacked the research and content for the past years, especially when now there is someone returning to be making the WP:BOLD edits with the proper sources available. won't be so encouraging to come back improving articles from years ago, now someone's removing whole edits with edit block threats.--Mlgc1998 (talk) 15:55, 22 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Your addition was flagged by a bot as a potential copyright issue and was assessed by myself. Here is a link to the bot report. Click on the iThenticate link to view what the bot found. The patrolling administrator is under no obligation to re-write the content for you, especially in light of the fact that there are up to 100 reports to be assessed daily. — Diannaa (talk) 19:27, 22 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Mlgc1998

Thank you for creating 2030 Bilingual Nation.

User:North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Nice work

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 15:55, 30 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

@North8000 Thanks Mlgc1998 (talk) 06:52, 31 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your most recent edit. Notice I did not revert your edit this time. This is because you provided many reliable sources which I am happy with. I do want to however, address your comment: "im not sure why you are trying to gatekeep this dish." Part of Wikipedia is always to Wikipedia:Assume good faith, I understand for new editors there's always certain indignation when their edits get reverted, but please understand that previously you only had one source and I googled and could not find any reference to the name you claimed. You then proceeded to revert without good explanations. Had you provided what you provided in the very first edit, no one would have reverted it. You must understand that on Wikipedia, we always receive vandalism and bad edits without source, what you provided most recently - was a good edit. And I hope you continuously do so for all your edit (good research, good explanation, and edit summary). Something that appears to be "common sense to you" (in this case, is that in Philippines you call it Cua Pao), is not common sense to most editors. The onus is on YOU to prove to us why you are correct. So saying something like "stop gatekeeping this dish" or "google is only a click away. kindly go check the numerous websites all exhibiting the dish." appears very unconstructive and lazy. I am a neutral editor and I love Filipino food, so your various personal attacks are very hurtful to someone like me who loves Filipino culture. Again, I understand there's always some anger when edits get reverted, but at the same time I would ask you to apologize for some of the emotional statements you made. Thank you. Kazuha1029 (talk) 16:31, 17 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

I'm not a new editor and this is a frequent behavior among many editors in wikipedia for the past years I've been here. It happens as well in other wiki projects I'm in for years, which I'm sure if you're not new, you would be familiar of that anyone would be annoyed at such behavior since in reality, we are all but anonymous editors volunteering to help improve certain pages on our own time, especially the ones that made an account and been here for years. What you tell me very much applies to your initial actions before from last year that I only noticed again these days, which you still repeated some days ago. If you ask for good faith treatment, the approach done last time should've accounted for that, so of course, you'll get the unfriendly response to unfriendly action. I do not do wiki policework precisely for these kinds of drama. Pls do know that simple unelaborated reversions due to point-at-this-rule* are also considered unconstructive or disruptive editing, when an editor simply proceeds to "revert without good explanations" or do legalistic wikilawyering editing citing this and that rule, and doing it to others because someone also did it to you long before is not a good cycle to repeat. Red tape behavior is not constructive nor helpful. For such kind of people, there is also a rule in wikipedia that exists to disregard all rules when such are not constructive. It is easy and lazy for an editor to simply click "undo" to revert edits simply mentioning or even copy pasting repeated comments such as "no source", as if policework is any helpful to good faith edits. If a source is needed or if one is really more curious about it, pls do know there is also the good faith approach of tagging an edit for verification that it lacks citation and kindly notifying the previous editor if they can look for one if they simply forgot to put it, if one decides to not put in the time themselves to perform the good faith approach of simply looking for the source and citing information yourself that one looks for. I understand of course, people's search engine would tailor fit one's search to one's IP so of course, it would not appear as quickly as it would for one in the country it is more relevant to, which is why if one aims to guard certain pages, just talk to the person first or tag it for verification first to notify the person rather than immediate reversions, especially nobody owns articles or entries in wiki even how long they guard it. As anonymous volunteer editors, we are not legally bound to be responsible for edits here and if someone does not edit the way one expects, simply talk to the person like a real human being without expectations to advise them for more info on whatever was lacking. A public sphere platform is like a garden people decide to tend to on their own accord when they're there. The natural reaction of course of taking out what another did without notifying them first before the act (especially for registered editors that isn't just a random ip) would elicit unfriendly response. I understand many in wikipedia do that style of wikipolicework, but I would not recommend to emulate such behavior. Mlgc1998 (talk) 17:30, 17 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

You provided a long argument to justify your actions and all I'm looking for is an apology. I explained why your edits were reverted in the edit summary - bad source. And again, had you provided the sources you provided most recently, no one would have reverted your edit. I want to stress, it is your responsibility as you introduce new material to the page to a stable version of the article. I did not need to find the sources for you. Think about it this way, if I randomly post a sentence to a Wikipedia and without source, then I tell editors "just cite it for me, do a google search, it's common sense", do you expect people should just accept my proposed edit? You then proceeded to revert without any attempt at addressing my comments and without considering why your edit was reverted which is a typical vandalism/newbie behaviour. Your statements and accusations were uncalled for - regarding gatekeeping and implying that I did not do research. I do not need to do research for you - but I did anyway and found no sources. This was explained very well in the edit summaries and you have read it as well. So your argument that I reverted your edit without explanation is false and that's not a justification for rude accusations. I appreciate your edit and your most recent edit was a good one. Had you provided this at the very beginning there would have been no argument at all. Next time, just assume good faith. Think about why your edit was reverted because aggression wouldn't help. Notice no matter what you said and what accusation you dished out, your edit was reverted UNTIL you provided good source. So ultimately you still did what I asked when I reverted your edit at the very beginning and we came to a consensus. - Kazuha1029 (talk) 19:02, 17 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Pls reserve your entitlements to your familiars. If anything, you're projecting what you do yourself. I've explained my edits and addressed your comments to which your behavior before and now is to simply ignore them under excuses now as "long argument", "bad source", "your responsibility" to justify your actions. Even your remarks now with "typical vandalism/newbie behaviour", "your responsibility", "I did not need to" express but arrogance to the gatekeeping you've been caught doing on that article. Think about it this way, if for years, someone stood by guarding articles and randomly removed your edits to a Wikipedia page cuz in their minds huh either bad or no source haha newb then only doing so after the fact rather than notifying editors beforehand in good faith about their supposed edit improvements, and then repeatedly removing further edits while subjectively considering other's edits as "unreliable", do you expect people should just accept your behavior and not call you out for it? Had you simply kindly notified the person of what you may be looking for rather than rudely repeatedly removing people's content and expecting others with whatever of your expectations and even demanding apologies, there would have been no argument at all. Next time, just assume good faith. Think about why your edit was reverted because aggression wouldn't help. Notice no matter what you said and what accusation and entitlements you dished out, your edit was reverted UNTIL you started thinking about the other person with good faith. I repeat these to you because the basis of your arguments are still leaning on subjective matters with regard to "good source". If you were not gatekeeping that article, there would have been no argument all the same regardless of your entitlements. Mlgc1998 (talk) 07:11, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

At this point I'm going to disengage from this conversation as I see there's no point arguing. You're simply using "others gatekeeping" as an excuse for yourself to make bad edits. Your edit got reverted? instead of thinking why "oh it must be all those policing going on! I absolutely have nothing I need to change! It's all your fault you're gatekeeping the article!"..."oh no! my edit got reverted! I'm going to be so angry now and start assuming everyone is against me and I'm going to spew out all these accusations"! Again, you ultimately did what I instructed and provided good sources - You can cry all you want newbie, as I understand you're still frustrated because you had to go back and improve your edit - again, if you did that at the beginning, no one would have reverted your edit. So no matter what you said, I've achieved my objective and you've listened. Good luck with your future edits. Kazuha1029 (talk) 13:22, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

  Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, adding content without citing a reliable source is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are certain this information is correct, please add a reliable reference to verify the information. Thank you. Dylanvt (talk) 02:37, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Dylanvt Citation added. More info also at Mongol invasions of Sakhalin#Background Mlgc1998 (talk) 14:32, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

 Template:Southern Min has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Arctic Circle System (talk) 06:54, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Philippines

added a link pointing to Tagalog

Sangley

added a link pointing to Tagalog

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hokkien, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page English.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:03, 2 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Huan-a, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Japanese.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:16, 20 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

I am not sure whether you receive pings, so I wanted to ensure you were aware of my attempts at discussion on Talk:Hokkien. Remsense诉 05:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Remsense oh I didn't get any ping from that Talk page days ago. thanks for the notification Mlgc1998 (talk) 05:17, 6 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello, in your edit in Philippines, can you please specify the page of the Boxer Codex citation you added? Thanks. Sanglahi86 (talk) 19:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Sanglahi86 Alright, here you go: p.415 on the PDF and website, but p.204 as handwritten on the book itself Mlgc1998 (talk) 20:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I overlooked the citation Doctrina Christiana en letra y lengua China, compuesta por los padres ministros de los Sangleyes, de la Orden de Sancto Domingo. Can you also please provide the specific page?

As an aside, the sentence Overseas trade with neighbors as early as the late Tang or Song empire brought Sinitic-speaking Chinese  to the archipelago, which would gradually settle in and intermix over the centuries has eight citations. Perhaps we need to reduce it (if not eliminate it) since the lead generally should not have citations as it should only contain the summary of the body. Ideally, the content of the sentence (together with the citations) should be mentioned in the body, so that we could remove the citations from the lead. As I am not familiar with the topic of the sentence, I don't know how to integrate it in the body; maybe you could help out? Sanglahi86 (talk) 14:25, 11 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Sanglahi86 Oh, I suppose some of the message of that sentence can also be written down to the History section around the Early states (900–1565) part, then those citations be moved there. Then, the sentence in the lead can be worded a bit better to reflect the info expounded further in the body in a more concise manner. The point of the citations I added before was to make sure any readers who do not know about when the first ethnic Chinese migrants came to the Philippines can know with supporting evidence the earliest written mentions or written works by that demographic living in the Philippines, besides more ambiguous things like trade good potteries. The citation about the 1590s Boxer Codex was mainly to show the earliest mention by Spanish writers of the Sangley Chinese living in the Philippines, while the 1613 Vocabulario de lengua tagala was to show the earliest that ethnic Chinese people are talked about in the Tagalog language at that time of early Spanish colonial era, where they mentioned that "Langlang" was what the elderly Tagalog speakers back then called them even back then before that written record. Likewise, the 1593 Doctrina Christiana en letra y lengua China would be the earliest work written in Hokkien using Chinese characters with Classical Chinese choice of characters in the Philippines itself published at Manila around that time of 1593 together in the same year as the more famous 1593 Doctrina Christiana en lengua española y tagala, so the existence of the book itself of Doctrina Christiana en letra y lengua China written mostly in Chinese characters is the written evidence enough that Sangley Chinese existed living in the Philippines as far back as that time in terms of written evidence, that the citations are for. I think the Catálogo BNE (Biblioteca Nacional de España) online scan would be better currently than the UST one and if looking for a specific page to cite, I think page 16 of the PDF in the Catálogo BNE version would do as its the front title page of the book when they start writing in Chinese characters showing obviously that the book is for Sangley Chinese living in the Philippines at that time even centuries ago at 1593.

I'll see if I can help out at editing there in the Philippines wiki page. Mlgc1998 (talk) 15:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for helping out. It's information overload for me. Sanglahi86 (talk) 15:46, 11 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Remsense诉 10:39, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hokkien numerals, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Min River.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:57, 25 May 2024 (UTC)Reply