User talk:Obsidian Soul

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 30[edit]

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

Austronesian peoples
added links pointing to William Marsden and Orientalist
Malay race
added links pointing to William Marsden and Orientalist

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:50, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 7[edit]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:24, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

"Filipino"[edit]

I undid your edit regarding the usage of the term "Filipino" during the Spanish colonial period and restored the previous version. That previous version was actually sourced, which you just ignored. Stricnina (talk) 00:35, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

@Stricnina: The claim that "Patria Adorada", "Bayang Pilipino", and "Sambayanáng Pilipino" are endonyms is incorrect. It is unsourced, and those are not endonyms at all. They are terms for the country, not the people. Other than that, the only thing I changed is add "Manilamen", "Tagala", and "Chino", with sources. So I have no idea what you're talking about.-- OBSIDIANSOUL 00:46, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
@Obsidian Soul: I am talking about the usage of the word "Filipino" itself. I left the "Manilamen", "Tagala", "Chino", etc intact. W.H. Scott actually talked about how early was the usage of the word "Filipino" itself to refer to the indios. I hope this clarifies things. Stricnina (talk) 01:18, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
I did not remove or change any of that (aside from a couple of grammatical edits). Again, what are you talking about?! And no, you did not "leave them intact". You removed the Manilamen etc. Are you perhaps confusing my edits with someone else, because this is bizarre. -- OBSIDIANSOUL 01:57, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
@Obsidian Soul: If you really wanted to know what I changed, you wouldn't be asking that question. I did NOT removed "Manilamen", etc, whatever are you talking about? Stricnina (talk) 02:01, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
@Obsidian Soul: Read what exactly was being edited beforehanded because you are not getting it. Yes, I did not even modified the other sentences you have written such as the "Manilamen", etc. I hope after you carefully read what I am actually editing, may you stop getting confused and stop saying I did not left your "Manilamen" etc intact. Stricnina (talk) 02:04, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Then what exactly are you reverting here? You accuse me of ignoring sources, but I didn't change any of the text, nor the meaning, nor did I remove any sources. I added sources, and clarified and expanded the phrasing (which was confusing). That's it. Compare:
My changes:
During the Spanish colonial period, natives of the Philippine islands were known by the generic terms indio ("Indian") or indigenta ("indigents").<ref name="Cruz">{{cite news |last1=Cruz |first1=Elfren S. |title=From indio to Filipino |url=https://www.philstar.com/opinion/2018/07/29/1837622/indio-filipino |access-date=30 November 2020 |work=PhilStar Global |date=29 July 2018}}</ref> The term Filipino was initially only used for the Spaniards born in the archipelago.<ref>{{cite book|author=Cecilio D. Duka|title=Struggle for Freedom' 2008 Ed.|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=4wk8yqCEmJUC|year=2008|publisher=Rex Bookstore, Inc.|isbn=978-971-23-5045-0|pages=[https://books.google.com/books?id=4wk8yqCEmJUC&pg=PA71&dq=%22the+filipino+identity%22+filipino+peninsulares 71–72]}}</ref> However, in later colonial periods, the term Filipino came to increasingly include the natives, especially when it was necessary to distinguish the indios of the Philippines from the indios of the Spanish colonies in other parts of the world.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Scott |first1=William Henry |title=Barangay: sixteenth-century Philippine culture and society |date=1994 |publisher=Ateneo de Manila University Press |isbn=978-971-550-135-4 |page=6 |language=English |chapter=Introduction |quote=But when it was necessary to distinguish the indios of the Philippines from those of the Americas, they were called Filipinos.|oclc=32930303 }}</ref>
Original text:
During the Spanish colonial period the term Filipino was used for the Spaniards born in the archipelago,'<ref>{{cite book|author=Cecilio D. Duka|title=Struggle for Freedom' 2008 Ed.|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=4wk8yqCEmJUC|year=2008|publisher=Rex Bookstore, Inc.|isbn=978-971-23-5045-0|pages=[https://books.google.com/books?id=4wk8yqCEmJUC&pg=PA71&dq=%22the+filipino+identity%22+filipino+peninsulares 71–72]}}</ref> especially when it was necessary to distinguish the indios of the Philippines from the indios of the Spanish colonies in the New World.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Scott |first1=William Henry |title=Barangay: sixteenth-century Philippine culture and society |date=1994 |publisher=Ateneo de Manila University Press |isbn=978-971-550-135-4 |page=6 |language=English |chapter=Introduction |quote=But when it was necessary to distinguish the indios of the Philippines from those of the Americas, they were called Filipinos.|oclc=32930303 }}</ref>
I repeat. What exactly are you reverting? My new sources? My phrasing? What? -- OBSIDIANSOUL 02:15, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
And contrary to your claims, my changes do not contradict W.H. Scott. Itagalog mo na lang kaya, para magkaintindihan tayo. Hindi na kita pinakialaman sa Babaylan, ngayon, WP:Wikihounding ka na.-- OBSIDIANSOUL 02:24, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
@Obsidian Soul: Your changes CONTRADICT W.H. Scott, because he is actually contesting the sentence "Filipino was initially used to refer to Spanish born in the Philippines" etc. Read how he traced the usage of the word Filipinos. Stricnina (talk) 02:30, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
@Obsidian Soul: This was your edit. You have written that "During the Spanish colonial period, natives of the Philippine islands were known by the generic terms indio ("Indian") or indigenta ("indigents")" and "However, in later colonial periods, the term Filipino came to increasingly include the natives, especially when it was necessary to distinguish the indios of the Philippines from the indios of the Spanish colonies in other parts of the world". The second line specifically contradicts what W.H. Scott when he write that the term "Filipino" was already being used to refer to the natives even before the events of the 19th century. W.H. Scott cited Chirino, belonging to the 16th-17th centuries, way way back the times of Varela and Rizal. Also, refrain from baseless accusations. Stricnina (talk) 02:46, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
@Stricnina: That already existed in the original version and is sourced to Duka. I did not add that, hence my confusion. Nor did I add the rest of the paragraph about how nationalism resulted in the use of "Filipino" for natives. I have removed the claim that it was originally only used for Spaniards and tweaked the phrasing to reflect W.H. Scott more accurately. Hope you are happy with those changes. You could have simply talked to me about that concern, instead of aggressively reverting and telling me I ignored sources.-- OBSIDIANSOUL 02:57, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
@Obsidian Soul: You are literally removing this: "During the early Spanish colonial period the term Filipino was already being used to refer to the indio natives of the Philippine archipelago, especially when it was necessary to distinguish the indios of the Philippines from the indios of the Spanish colonies in the New World.", without providing a proper justification. I also see that you are the same difficult-to-talk-with user from the Philippine shamans page. Stricnina (talk) 03:05, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
@Stricnina: Then I'll re-add it. That was your recent addition. I wasn't removing anything. I was just reverting your removal of my edit. Seriously. You were blaming me for something that I did not do. I wasn't the one who added the sentence sourced to Duka. And I could say the same about you with your unwarranted hostility. -- OBSIDIANSOUL 03:10, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
@Obsidian Soul: According to this edit, you are the one who wrote "However, in later colonial periods, the term Filipino came to increasingly include the natives" when W.H. Scott himself said that this happened in the earliest years of Spanish colonial rule. Hence why I am editing it, which you keep undoing for reason only you can provide as I can't understand why you are having DIFFICULTIES understanding what exactly I am editing. Stricnina (talk) 03:13, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
@Stricnina: Because I was fixing the grammar. I was trying to make sense of the original confusing sentence that "During the Spanish colonial period the term Filipino was used for the Spaniards born in the archipelago, especially when it was necessary to distinguish the indios of the Philippines from the indios of the Spanish colonies in the New World." THAT was not my phrasing. The fact that Duka contradicts Scott is not my fault, nor do you remove the original contradiction by merely reverting me. So quit blaming me. I have already edited it to remove Duka, I repeat, are you happy now, or are you still trying to pick another fight with me? Go read the new version now. -- OBSIDIANSOUL 03:20, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
@Obsidian Soul: The fact that you are treating all of this as a "fight" speaks for itself. Reminder that I literally just reminded you that I fixed some sentences in order to integrate W.H. Scott's findings in the section, while you are just having difficulties what exactly was I trying to edit. Stricnina (talk) 03:25, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
No. You just reverted and accused me of ignoring sources, then continued reverting even when I asked you why you were reverting. Once I understood your problem, I made the changes you wanted, but you still don't seem happy, and now we're on WP:AN, even though neither of us violated WP:3RR and I conceded to your wishes without resorting to reversion. This is hilariously bizarre.-- OBSIDIANSOUL 03:31, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
If you were not ignoring sources, you wouldn't have made the blanket undoing of edits. I specifically added some sentences to integrate information from the Scott source. I literally just informed you that I have undone or modified some of your edits and your first instinct is revert, revert, revert, while complaining with confusion what was being undone. Stricnina (talk) 03:35, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
You. Reverted. First. I asked you why, and fixed the problem when I finally understood what you were talking about. Now you're just annoying me. I refuse to talk with you further. -- OBSIDIANSOUL 03:39, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
@Obsidian Soul: You asked and you only understand after a couple more undoing of edits without understanding what exactly am I trying to do that section. Before you undo, undo, undo, read what you are undoing (for several times) before undoing it in state of confusion. Stricnina (talk) 03:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Please stop posting on my talk page. Go complain on WP:AN.-- OBSIDIANSOUL 03:47, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
And refrain from being hostile, I literally just informed you that I have reverted some things to integrate W.H. Scott's findings and the only thing you are doing is to engage in a petty undoing war. Stricnina (talk) 03:48, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Please stop posting on my talk page. I will remove further comments. Thank you-- OBSIDIANSOUL 03:49, 17 January 2021 (UTC).

Complaint about your edits at WP:AN3[edit]

Please see WP:AN3#User:Obsidian Soul reported by User:Stricnina (Result: ) . You can respond there if you wish. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:21, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 1[edit]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:25, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 10[edit]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:15, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Article[edit]

Do you think Pancit Canton can have their own article or notable enough to have it? 49.151.173.220 (talk) 04:51, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes it can, and yes it's notable enough to have it. Same with the other different types of pancit. They're all just squished into one article at the moment, because no one has written individual articles yet.-- OBSIDIANSOUL 08:23, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 20[edit]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:15, 20 February 2021 (UTC)