Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TheCoffee (talk | contribs) at 21:05, 21 January 2008 (→Perspective: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

June 28 2007 to January 3 2008

WP:OR

Hi Floro,

Please review WP:TONE. I'm currently looking at Fernando Suarez and there's some mistakes that I noted in some of your previous pages that you are making in this one as well. One is the tone, referenced above. The text should be neutral and professional sounding. Sometimes your prose is nearly incomprehensible and comes across as very odd. Generally the use of a) and b) in most sections isn't appropriate. Also:

• WP:LEAD - the lead paragraph should summarize the important parts of the page below. As someone who can ostensibly raise the dead, I don't think his sports conduct merits a mention in the lead.
• WP:CIT - consider using citation templates. They're easy to use, and the references look much neater
• WP:OR and WP:FORK - it's not really these policies, but it's there. There is no need for large sections explaining or describing things. For example, I removed the section Healing in catholicism from the page. There is probably an entire page dedicated to the subject somewhere on wikipedia. There is no need to have an entire section on this subject on Suarez' page. Further, there is no actual mention of Suarez in the section.
• WP:FOOT and WP:RS - sometimes you will use citations in ways that do not justify the statement they are paired with. For instance, I removed the following Outside Quiapo Church, Manila, an old crippled woman begged of him for pray over, and he successfully made her walk in seconds. because the citation made no mention of this at all. This is a greater problem on this page because of WP:BLP - adding unsourced information about living people, positive or negative, is not something to be done lightly.
• WP:GTL - the order of sections is pretty fixed. It can be found in the guide to layout
• WP:EL - there should be a short list of relevant external links - link to a website once, to the main page, not to multiple sub-pages. Lots of you-tube doesn't really help either, though there's no ban, it should be a minimum.
• WP:NAME - though the page name is OK, some of the section names are overly long - Montemaria: 102 meters high "Mary Mother of the Poor Shrine" / healing center is too long, I've changed it to Montemaria. It's also just a strange section. Please don't 'praise' things - it's a statue, not a phenomenal statue. That's out of keeping with ]. There's also a paragraph in that section that mentions healing stones, which comes out of nowhere, and doesn't seem to match up with the rest of the page.
• I don't remember the policy, but don't duplicate links in the see also section if they're already in the body of the page. Also, the encyclopedia you linked to didn't seem to be related (An_Encyclopedia_of_Claims,_Frauds,_and_Hoaxes_of_the_Occult_and_Supernatural) Does it mention Suarez? Are you trying to say he's a fraud? Same with The Faith Healers.

That's about all I have to say now. Thanks. WLU (talk) 20:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, and I deeply understand the problem. I admit, that with reference to articles with very FEW links, like this one (BUT, Suarez is really so famous, and everywhere he goes he makes miracles, WHAT impressed me here is the P 5 billion mega-shrine, and it was officially broken/blessed by the Cardinal, it is $ 200 million). However, it is sad, that unlike me (Florentino V. Floro) due to dwarves, my name has thousands of links and it is easy to make on my self a good article. MY REAL PROBLEM with famous people and noted articles like Suarez, is the few links. Like in Virgin Coconut Oil, with so many links, the problem, is many of them are not neutral, but commercial and the medical claims are not yet really convincing. MY SECOND PROBLEM is copyright violation. So, I have a hard time with writing the articles. Often, I fear that my good article would me MERGED, RE-directed and/or deleted due to copyright violations. There is really a dilemma, in writing a good article with very few verifiable links. Look at the links of Suarez, I could not found criticisms like corruption, as in many USA tele-evangelists. So, my article might be a candidate for deletion. Then, the verifiable links are very hard to write not violating copyright laws. So, I have no choice but to use my own words, making the grammar quite no sense often. Anyway, I believe that, at the very least, this NOTED article might be written better by good users like your and admins. If you read my other created articles with very many links you will NOTICE that I wrote GOOD ONES. Thanks for improving the article. And regards.

--Florentino floro (talk) 05:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The only thing I can say is please indicate your understanding by changing your editing practices - these are many of the same mistakes made with other articles. Don't content fork, don't include unnecessary sections, don't copy either from other wikipedia pages or outside sources, use a summary style with appropriate tone. And please read WP:TALK - you also consistently show poor spacing of your talk page comments. Though you do appear to be well intentioned, it's increasingly frustrating when there is no sign of change despite numerous people politely and repeatedly pointing out the problems. Consider using sub pages rather than mainspace. WLU (talk) 16:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, for your message, I stand corrected and I will try to read them. Regards. --Florentino floro (talk) 05:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Archiving

Consider archiving your talk page - it's very long and this can greatly increase the length of time it takes to edit, preview and load the page for those on slower internet connections. I can archive it for you if you'd like. WLU (talk) 16:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh sure, but I don't know how yet, I will have to study this, you know, I had been new to all these and computer, but if you have time, please help me and you can do it for me please. Thanks.

--Florentino floro (talk) 05:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. WLU (talk) 18:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks, so much. The very first I learned from your message, is SUMMARY editing. So, from now on, I will use SUMMARY EDITING instead of long ones I did in articles, except in STUBS maybe. Well, I know that short and concise / neutral editing or adding is the best. But you know, last Dec. 07, our Philippine internet collapsed due to the Taiwan quake. So, it was very hard to open Internet here and in Asia, thus making me do edits which are rather long. Now, I see the advantage of Wiki policy of short summary editing, since the reader of the article WILL anyway open the links. Regards. I will learn little by little. IN TIME. --Florentino floro (talk) 05:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Philippine Copyright Law

Hi can you give your opinion here Wikipedia_talk:Tambayan_Philippines#Seals_again as the only Tambay that have a law background that I know of, maybe you could offer your insight regarding this matter. Perhaps you have a copy of past constitutions and copyright laws or if the present law is applicable to past works?--Lenticel 00:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC) Thanks for visiting my talk page. You know, I myself (in WikiPedia Commons, User:Judgefloro, was warned and all my image contributions were deleted due to copyright violations, allegedly; in fact, my user was blocked until January 6, 2008; I spent about a month for uploading all those pictures, but all of them were deleted INCLUDING my very own creations, like my blue robes, my healing oil, etc.); specifically, I told them that as lawyer/judge, Philippine copyright laws on images and documents from government sites of Philippines are governed by: "The Philippines - Copyrighted photographs are protected for 50 years after publication. Works by the government of the Philippines are not protected by copyright. However, prior approval of the government agency or office wherein the work was created is necessary for exploitation of such works for profit." (Republic Act 8293)((Republic Act 8293). My problem, then, is how to get the nod or conformity of the Supreme Court of the Philippines regarding those images. And this discussion applies also to SEALS of towns, provinces and Philippine government. So, I fought in the WikiPedia Common deletion APPEAL. And I lost, as I was judged by administrators there who might not be familiar with the grey areas or the FINER POINTS of Philippine copyright laws. (In Youtube, also, about 2 of my TV uploads about myself here, were deleted due to copyright violations, on NOTIFICATION allegedly by ABS-CBN, but I do not believe it; I rather surmise that my enemies here in the judiciary were the ones who complained to Youtube - so now out of 27 I have 23 remaining uploads: ). Let me reproduce my ARGUMENT here which I submitted to Wiki Commons, which was DENIED by the admins there: : "Sir, with all due respect, the pictures: * Image:Luz Narcisa Puno.png * Image:Dante Tinga.png * Image:Renato corona.png * Image:Chico Nazario.png, etc. - were copied from the Philippine site of our Supreme Court of the Philippines. I am a Philippine lawyer, and under our law and Misplaced Pages rules, these pictures may be copied if there is prior permission from the government agency. I quote the rule from Misplaced Pages: The Philippines Copyrighted photographs are protected for 50 years after publication. Works by the government of the Philippines are not protected by copyright. However, prior approval of the government agency or office wherein the work was created is necessary for exploitation of such works for profit. (Republic Act 8293) R.A. 8293 does not require written permission, since under our Civil Code, grant of permission may be verbal/oral or written, or tacit. Meaning therefore, if the government agency does not in any manner complain to WikiPedia, then the same is UTTER permission. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, it is hereby prayed that by virtue of the cited Philippine law, the aforementioned pictures should, as it is prayed that they be retained for the public domain. Further with regards to *Image:Hello Judge.jpg Ripley's does not have that, since theirs is completely different: I hope the foregoing will enlighten Tambayan users and admins on the proper application of Philippine copyright laws. I stress however, that I cannot submit to you any opinion about foreign laws on copyright, since I am not familiar with them. Sincerely, --Florentino floro (talk) 06:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: The following is very informative on the SEALS - REPUBLIC ACT No. 8293, June 6, 1997: "PART IV, THE LAW ON COPYRIGHT, CHAPTER I, Section 171. CHAPTER IV - WORKS NOT PROTECTED - Section 176. Works of the Government. - 176.1. No copyright shall subsist in any work of the Government of the Philippines. However, prior approval of the government agency or office wherein the work is created shall be necessary for exploitation of such work for profit. Such agency or office may, among other things, impose as a condition the payment of royalties. No prior approval or conditions shall be required for the use of any purpose of statutes, rules and regulations, and speeches, lectures, sermons, addresses, and dissertations, pronounced, read or rendered in courts of justice, before administrative agencies, in deliberative assemblies and in meetings of public character. (Sec. 9, first par., P.D. No. 49) CHAPTER VIII - Section 184. Limitations on Copyright. - 184.1. Notwithstanding the provisions of Chapter V, the following acts shall not constitute infringement of copyright: Section 185. Fair Use of a Copyrighted Work. - 185.1. Section 212. Limitations on Rights. - Sections 203, 208 and 209 shall not apply where the acts referred to in those Sections are related to: 212.2. Using short excerpts for reporting current events; 212.3. Use solely for the purpose of teaching or for scientific research; and 212.4. Fair use of the broadcast subject to the conditions under Section 185. (Sec. 44, P.D. No. 49a)" --Florentino floro (talk) 07:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: CEU

Hi! Yea, it was all of the campuses actually, all three campuses, Mendiola, Malolos and Makati. --Glenncando (talk) 03:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC) Oh, I personally know CEU. When I studied at the Ateneo de Manila University (A.B. and LL.B, 1972-4, 1978-82 and MBA, 1975), I regularly passed CEU Mendiola. At that time, it was notorious for being called the den of prostitutes or "pok-pok". But now, CEU is one of the most expensive nursing school in my town near Alido Malolos. I passed there almost weekly when I buy in South Supermarket. I ate at Fortune Restaurant here, and I was amazed that about 12 nuns, the most powerful officers run CEU, Malolos. I talked to a student and he said that one semester would cost P 40,000 ($1 = P 40)(in 1972, one semester in Ateneo costs P 395 - P 1,300, 1974; now it is P 80,000), more or less, and there are also hotel courses. CEU Malolos now is one of the best schools in Bulacan. Oh, memories. That is why WikiPedia is great and here we can permanently SEAL the history of great schools, people and .... Regards. --Florentino floro (talk) 05:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

MOS

Hi Floro, please be aware of the manual of style, in particular, regards edits like this, the guide to layout and the order for standard appendicies. The proper order for a page is:

==See also==

==Notes==

==References== (or combined with Notes into Notes and references)

==Bibliography== (or Books or Further reading)

==External links==

I haven't corrected the page in question, it is up to you if you want to do it yourself or not. WLU (talk) 15:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC) Thanks, I stand corrected. I just know this today. I admit that I commit many errors due to the fact that I only have one year learning of the computer last April 2006, and WikiPedia is harder than law; so let me learn little by little; in fact, one admin advised me to use summary style, so I did; but unlike many users here, I have lots of TIME, and I spend about 8-10 hours daily in WikiPedia, hoping, WHY? When I was googled as world-famous due to dwarves, I spent 10 hours daily in forums and blogs which wrote about my case; now, I found out that my forum contributions are just there and forgotten; here in Wiki it is permanent more or less and I can be remembered by generations; and here, unlike in law, there is no corruption; users are all equals to edit and correct each other in accordance with citation of Wiki laws, and it it GREAT. Regards and thanks again. --Florentino floro (talk) 04:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Perspective

It's great that you're editing Misplaced Pages to add info, but you need to keep things in perspective. There are some edits where you add paragraphs or entire sections with information about a single news article which doesn't merit that much importance. For instance, you added an entire "wish list" sections to the Prospero Pichay and Rodrigo Duterte articles, where perhaps a single sentence without the entire list would be more appropriate (that is, IF an arbitrary wish list is significant enough to mention at all). Just something to keep in mind. TheCoffee (talk) 21:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)