User talk:Florentino floro/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 WP:OR 2 Archiving 3 Philippine Copyright Law 4 Re: CEU 5 MOS 6 Perspective 7 Spacing in talk pages 8 What the... 9 Lindsay Lohan 10 AfD nomination of Timeline: Philippine Standout Events (2006-2007) 11 Welcome! 12 insertion of news items into encyclopedia pages 12.1 2,832 Edits as of February 15, 2008 13 URLs to news stories 14 Instead of creating a new article... 15 Objection to deletion: Rebuttal Thesis 16 AfD nomination of Timeline: 2008 Calls for Resignation of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo 17 Maybe this would help 18 troll 19 First, let's archive (again)

[edit] 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.[4] because the citation [1] 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 [WP:NPOV]]. 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 ^(talk) 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: [2]). Let me reproduce my ARGUMENT here which I submitted to Wiki Commons, which was DENIED by the admins there: [3]: "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 Wikipedia rules, these pictures may be copied if there is prior permission from the government agency. I quote the rule from Wikipedia: 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) [4] 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[5]: "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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 [dwarf] 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)

[edit] Perspective

It's great that you're editing Wikipedia 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) Oh, thanks. MEA CULPA. My fault really; how I edit, you will notice, is very long and not summary. Well, in some STUBS articles, I expand them since they are very rarely visited and few written by verifiable news about them do come along. I add the entire WISH LIST, why? Coz of my prophetic writings. The WISH LIST, if not edited or erased, would remain a DIRE WARNING to our Philippine candidates that "nasa 2010 ang SUMPA, karma at spell". Those in the list are DOOMED. This wish list as the news reported WAS TO FLOAT for SWS survey, but HOW? Filipinos cannot forget 2004 cheating. Take for example in my article Teresita de Castro. When I signed the Talk Page, on July 11, 2007, I created it coz I want to tell the Filipinos that my being world-famous in google, internet is not by coincidence, I predict with impeccability. De Castro was appointed on Dec. 4 a day before Minita Chico-Nazario's birthday who wrote my decision (whom I predicted per pleadings and internet on March 12, 2004 to be appointed S.C. Justice). Well, next time, I will try to follow Wiki style of editing and writing. One last point. Wiki is great, coz it is more or less permanent. Unlike in forums where I wasted time talking to those bloggers and users who talked about my dwarves and case with crab mentality, here, I wrote article which EMBEDDED my written prophecies from my written filed pleadings to PROVE beyond reasonable doubt that I do write with specifics and beforehand my dire predictions unlike Nostradamus. Examples: Timeline: Philippine Standout Events (2006-2007) - The most read and shocking events which landed in Philippine newspapers' front pages; and Philippine Extrajudicial Killings and Desaparecidos - Illegal political murders and enforced disappearances in the Philippines]]. If you open Sun Star Forums [6]MEMORANDUM 0F PROPHECIES - April 6, 2006 - November 18, 2007, you will find that all my predictions there were put in these 2 articles. NOTE that one was challenged to be for DELETION, since they noticed that I just select dire events and SO, I added all the TOP 2007 events and there it STAYED. Also, there is no WIKI article on AMPARO, I am the only one who was BRAVE to have written that; at first it was almost deleted since I copied heavily from Fr. Joaquin Bernas, but I reformed the article. And this is great since unlike corrupt courts, here, users and admin correct me and I learn. This is the NEUTRAL part of wiki. Just MEMORIES. This is my only consolation, in spending 10 hours daily for Wiki: to add and edit here most important events which are Filipino but global in character. One last point. My attorney/counsel-of-record in the world-famous dwarf case is Rene Saguisag, whose wife died Dulce Saguisag, a horrible death. Inserted in the Sunstar predictions are how I talked 3 times to RENE before the fatal and dire predicted accident on Nov. 8, about Truth, HOW his very own staff Atty. Ma. Isabel "Bibing" Providencia Timbangkaya, daughter of my very own lawyer in that case Atty. Vicky Timbangkaya WROTE and drafted the entire 75 pages decision which untruthfully accused me of consulting elves. Now, Saguisag is invalid and in PAIN. Wiki is a portal of Truth, Veritas which is stranger than fiction. Thanks. I fervently hope that many filipino users would READ BETWEEN my LINES why I write this way, since the INSERTED prophecies are there; my point is: I have great respect for users here and admins to the extent that I do not revert what they edit in any or all my works. That is the essence of neutrality and INTEGRITY in Wiki, where I never found in Courts. --Florentino floro (talk) 05:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spacing in talk pages

Hi! I'd suggest that, for the sake of readability before you write in your comments on talk pages, please first enter it on a new line (press the ENTER key) so that we'll be able to figure out which comment belongs to other editors and which one is yours. I'd admit that it's too hard to read talk pages where you participated in because I can't tell where your comment starts in the middle of a long, long paragraph, so please put in a little effort to make your comments as readable as possible.

Also, if possible, please try to introduce indents in your comments by including a colon (:) at the start of each paragraph. For example:

Apples oranges
:Lemons mangoes

will be rendered into something like this:

Apples oranges
    Lemons mangoes

Multiple colons (as in, "::", ":::" and so forth) will further indent paragraphs. That way, if more than one persons are participating in a virtual dialogue, we'll know which person said what. For example:

I'm going shopping today. Who's coming with me? --- Wiki-user1
    I have exams in an hour, count me out. --- Wiki-user2
        That's okay. Anyone else? --- Wiki-user 1
            Thanks! --- Wiki-user2
        Exams? But today's a Saturday? ---Wiki-user3
            I know, I know. Make-up exam, you see. --- Wiki-user2
    Where are we going shopping? --- Wiki-user3
        Trinoma. Why? ---Wiki-user 1
            That's good! I'll be there myself the whole day. Shall I meet you at Starbucks? Wiki-user3 

Thanks. --- Tito Pao (talk) 06:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, sure, little by little I will learn. Sorry for my mistakes. Miss you, though, and I am sure you're in the choir. By the way, I am proud that the river of Meycauayan where I walked daily through and through from 1955-1965 to St. Mary's Academy, is now world-famous, in the Top Dirty 30 in the whole world, Memories. One final note: please fail not to read my Fernando Suarez article, for I am sure most of your choir members went to Montemaria to gather the magic, healing 5,000 stones (the Ottawa user edited out the Meycauayan parish priest inquirer.net news there but its in the link). Regards. --Florentino floro (talk) 06:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What the...

What are these Verum Est threads of yours at WT:PINOY? That place isn't really a discussion board a la PinoyExchange but rather a place to coordinate efforts for improvement of Philippine-related articles. If you really insist on talking about these "mystic occurrences" I suggest you use other website or create a blog. --Howard the Duck 15:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I just want to let Filipinos there to NOTICE the most important events taking place in our country which caught global attention: a) the miracles of Fernando Suarez in gma news video where I had seen myself in TV how the sick were medically / miraculously healed; and his Montemaria; and b) the Bolinao coal spill which damaged so much the marine bio-diversity there like corrals, fishes, etc. like the oil spill at Iloilo etc. With my notification there, I would deeply awaken users to expand and created Philippine articles on that which would merit global attention. It is not the mystic or religious tone but the global impact. --Florentino floro (talk) 06:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

If it's that important, why don't you create it yourself? Or add it at the article requests section? The threads are annoying and waste time trying to figure out what it is for. Since you're the one so into this, it'll be better if you create it yourself since it seems no one knows about these things (hence they won't be able to help easily). --Howard the Duck 06:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Noted. I will see what I can do, to contribute on these. Thanks.--Florentino floro (talk) 06:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, please read WP:LINK. I've noticed on your contributions, you link every conceivable word possible. Be sure to link the words that are appropriate... or link them correctly (using the show preview button will help).

For example, in your edit to ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation, you linked to the word lawyer, damages, Civil Code and Philippines. In those instances it is inappropriate to link to those words, however a link to Civil Code of the Philippines, is appropriate. --Howard the Duck 06:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

On the point of law and for those readers of Wiki who are researchers or foreign magistrates, there seems rather more benefit than harm, if some words are linked, that is - blue, for, if the article is partly legal or medical etc. some meanings must me so technical that they must be linked so that the reader would have to correlate the meanings of technical words. Anyway, I note your suggestion and will read the Wiki linking. Thanks.----Florentino floro (talk) 09:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes but look at your example, "arrests" was linked, sure if you're talking about legal terms in an article about law, you may link to "arrests" but on a general-purpose article (such as a broadcast network), linking to "arrests" is rather frivolous, not to mention "arrest" is a rather basic English word so it doesn't really need linking; although "damages" may be allowed (not everyone knows what the word "damage" represents in legal cases.

Another, please do not wikilink plural words like this: "[[damages]]", to wikilink a plural word, do it this way: "[[damage]]s" since most Wikipedia articles are named via their singular form. --Howard the Duck 11:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I stand corrected; on the plural form, I noticed really that my plural linking is incorrect. --Florentino floro (talk) 11:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Although the legal term "damages" is always set in plural so it might be a good idea to pluralize it when linking... just use common sense, if a word doesn't have a singular form (like annals), link it using the plural form, for all other words, if the wikilink should appear plural, use the "[[plural]]s" method. --Howard the Duck 11:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, before I save, I test my edit by first previewing them, specifically the links if they are correct red or blue. Thanks again. -- --Florentino floro (talk) 06:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lindsay Lohan

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to Lindsay Lohan. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 15:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for visiting my page. Please edit my additions or mistakes, if the same is controversial or the link is not verifiable. Regards. -- --Florentino floro (talk) 06:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The article you linked to is about "a friend of actress Lindsay Lohan" (NOT "Lindsay Lohan"). Since the suit was for libel, I'd have thought that would make anyone extra careful about ow they reproduced the information ... --Paularblaster (talk) 21:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for my mistake, I might have overlooked that.-- --Florentino floro (talk) 01:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Timeline: Philippine Standout Events (2006-2007)

An editor has nominated Timeline: Philippine Standout Events (2006-2007), an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline: Philippine Standout Events (2006-2007) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 07:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the Notice, I will submit by views on the discussion / debate. -- --Florentino floro (talk) 07:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Given that the discussion is a couple of days old already, I wasn't sure you'd see my comment on the AfD, so I'll repeat the gist of it here. To me, your work on this article seems absolutely first-rate. But since the articles 2006 in the Philippines and 2007 in the Philippines follow the more usual format found on wikipedia (and so will more easily be found by people looking for digests of Philippine events), can I suggest that you put in a bit more time to transfer the information to those articles, rather than fighting to save this particular one? The reason that I suggest that you do it yourself is so that the article history will reflect whose work it is that made this information available. --Paularblaster (talk) 21:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern. I will copy a back-up of this article and in case of deletion or merging I will try to merge therein most important events which are not in there. ----Florentino floro (talk) 01:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I might be telling you something you already know, but a good way of taking something down to tinker with is to create a page such as User:Florentino_floro/Timeline. --Paularblaster (talk) 08:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yes, I think I remember that an administrator here suggested me to create that on coconut healing oil. What I do is just to back-up most of my articles in my e-mail. The article for deletion is a TREASURE: I worked for that since 1999, (my written and court filed pleading containing the specific predictions, that not even Nostradamus ever did) since all my predictions came to pass accurately in writing before, but the links are not in the internet. You know, if you read carefully the article, there are IMPOSSIBLE EVENTS there which happened only in the Philippines: a) our Supreme Court fire on Jan 15 07 which halved the logo, the COMELEC fire, which halved the seal, 2007, the 2007 Court of Appeals fire which burned the highest floor entirely, (these never happened since their buildings were built since 1901 etc, 1936, but why all these 3 in 2007? the Muntinlupa fire burning the Court and my own court in Malabon was preserved while all were burned in July 20, 2000 and Malolos Courts too; b) the triple 2006-2007 deaths of Luz Puno and Narcisa Puno wife and mother of Chief Justice Reynato Puno same month of April 2006/2007 after my decision which is world-famous was released (I did not edit it, for fear that my detractors Filipinos here would cite Wiki Rules of non-editing by users regarding their own, but it is not about myself); the death of Lily Victorino the wife of the highest JBC member Raul Victorino here circa the denial of my appeal Aug. 2006; and death of Hilario Davide, Sr. father of Chief Justice Hilario Davide, Jr. after long pain, on July 17, 2006, after release of my decision; I suffered for 7 years before I became immortal on world history, Vide my Links; parenthetically, I suffered due to the 7 longest unconstitutional suspension signed by Alfredo Benipayo, University of Santo Thomas, whom I predicted to have suffered the angioplasty on Feb. 21, 2001, and he was nominated 7 times but failed to get the Supreme Court post and resigned as Solicitor General circa my separation, 2006 March. If you read between the lines, some Filipinos here would of course examine my works, for mistakes in my edits, when, as computer experts they can give KINDNESS by editing my works for the benefit of future Wiki researchers. Wiki is not a forum or blog where users fight with hidden agenda. I am a gifted psychic worth my salt, and I am so poor that I only rent a house, but the google links are my treasure. I contribute here in utter good faith, but they cannot understand that Filipino judges and lawyers are so uneducated on computer, I bet. Very few judges know internet. I am a slow learner. So, I have nothing against foreign users editing or deleting my works. But if my very own countrymen, Filipino users would delete my scholarly written works, then so be it. Who would loose, not the foreigners but Filipinos. Look what happened to my very own counsel of record Rene Saguisag, whose wife Dulce Saguisag died in pain Nov. 8, 2007, 3 days after I challenged in 12 pages pleading our very own Supreme Court of the Philippines to accept the truth that it was Atty. Bibing Timbangkaya, the daughter of Atty. Vicky Timabangkaya, the partner of Rene Saguisag who drafted and finalized the 75 pages decision that falsely accused me of consulting dwarves; all these are in the internet, and I uploaded all these documents in my friendster photos (Florentino V. Floro). Most of the dire events on 2006 - 2007 were accurately predicted by me in writing (the article was first challenged as not neutral, since it was selective), so I added many top events which are not my predictions, to comply with Wiki neutrality rules. Now, the article is challenged as duplicating the 2 articles. In law, when I studied here, when you attack a pleading, you must include all the grounds there; so, there will be no end to users filing here in Wiki deletion, setting piece-meal grounds. And if archived due to no consensus, then, another round of attack. Why not let the foreign users or admins attack the Filipino article based on Wiki rules, so that the debate would be neutral. Just sayin. Not scary perhaps, but I just want to express my sentiment on deletion debates regarding good articles. -- --Florentino floro (talk) 14:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome!

Welcome!

Hello, Florentino floro, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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 your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!

I suggest you read all of the links provided in this section in order to have a conducive Wikipedia experience. --Howard the Duck 09:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. But give me TIME, I am a very slow learner on computer and WikiPedia finer points. As you can see, all my contributions except on law, are just ordinary and I need time or more messages from users like you on my mistakes. Law is different from computer learning. I do not have the advantage of even a 2 year B.S. computer user or even a high school user. As of year 2005, very very few judges here know Internet. Of 27 Malolos RTC judges, only about 2 know how to use computer and there is no Internet in courts as of now. They provide discs for judicial decisions Phil Juris. Now, in the Supreme Court of the Philippines Justice Angelina Sandoval Gutierrez who scholarly writes decisions, I personally talked to her and was amazed that she does not even use manual typewriter (unlike Justice Romeo Callejo, Sr. who knows how to use manual typewrite but never a computer), she uses yellow paper and pencil to write decisions. I also talked to Justice of CA Apolinario Bruselas, and he told me that there was no Internet in the Court of Appeals of Cebu that time. The nearest Internet was 1 hour from the courts. Another point, I respect users here, and I want to be regularly corrected on how to make Wiki more legible, like how to edit here in talk pages. One last point. With kindness, may I ask you not to delete my created article on 2007 Phil standout events, since I worked that article part by part for 2 years. Sad to say, Sun Star Forums closed temporarily and all my edits are there. I just know that there are 2 articles already covering that 2006 and 2007 events. But but but, my article is especially tailored for Wiki scholars and researchers in law. Notice that there are events there like the deaths of Narcisa, Luz Puno and Hilario Davide, Jr. which are so notable but are not in the other 2 articles. In the future, many of Filipinos will profit from my article. Sometimes you know, due to ignorance of Wiki rules and laziness, I would copy an article and use another link. In Rita Milla a UK admin deleted my article since he was so witty to discover that I copied verbatim a tabloid and then used a good link, so I lost. I learned my lesson. Same thing in Thriller Cebu, which was edited by a foreign user since I was lazy to use my own words. They are so afraid of copyright suits. But our Philippine copyright laws allow some leeways to the extent of about 20% of the article even quoting... So give me time, I am a slow learner. And I ask you next time, to specify to me what I should edit so that I will know, treat me as a grade I user, since I have a hard time learning computer. Believe me, ask judges here, they are ignorant of Internet.-- --Florentino floro (talk) 09:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] insertion of news items into encyclopedia pages

Hi, I noticed some of your recent additions to sea lions and cochlear implants, and it seems to me that you are finding news items on line and trying to insert them into any article that is related. I think you should try to pay a little more attention to the pages you are editing to see if the content you are adding actually helps make them better. You make a large number of edits, and it is clear that you care about wikipedia. I am sure you are acting in good faith, but many of your edits do not satisfy the notability requirement on wikipedia, and many of them end up being distracting. Please be a little more discerning. maxsch (talk) 21:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. Actually, I thought that in the future these massive killings of sea lions would, verily be noticed by environmentalists and those who care about animal life. The news was very interesting and it is not an everyday event, on the subject of conservation and endangered species; on cochlear implant, it is the first time we heard this great news here in the Philippines, especially involved is our top 2010 Presidentiable and Top Senator Loren Legarda; so, I deem it very historical here, but of course, I am not sure of its global impact; it is a miracle for those poor people hear who lost hope in hearing, especially it is the 25th only in our history; more deeply, if the entire links are read, since I summarily edited the links due to Wiki rules, then, for sure, in the future, these 2 edits may caught the attention of researchers. But, I respectfully submit to your or any user or admin here to DELETE or amend my edit, since the END is making Wiki a better place for future generation; as you see, it is not just my care or good faith, but it is just that my line is law as a lawyer and judge and beginner here just one year, without any background on computer, unlike even 2 year old Filipino kids who know how to open computer; I just learned this stuff last April 2006; in fact, if you review my archives, I was twice corrected on editing medical developments per BBC or top links like AP, but I blame these news for being controversial; so, as you notice, when any of my edits are deleted I do not complain, since, my line is law; I only debate when my article on law or here in Philippines is challenged; and more importantly if an non-Filipino would edit my edits, that is neutral, since we users or editors want to make Wiki a neutral and good BOOK of the future generation. Regards. -- --Florentino floro (talk) 11:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2,832 Edits as of February 15, 2008

You see, the thing is, you've continued this pattern of editing. Your edit to the graphite page today, as just one example, is completely irrelevant to the section you put it under. See [7] . The fact that someone made and gave away a gigantic pencil is not related to "other uses" of graphite. This is clutter. Your talk page is filled with people pointing out the inappropriateness of this kind of edit, but nowhere is it clear that you have understood. maxsch (talk) 20:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for this mistake. I just connected the sub-section about pencil as one of the things to which graphite is used or is ingredient. I see it is far fetched, I just thought the big thing seems to fit there, due to its Guinness thing. -- --Florentino floro (talk) 05:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

After a break, I see you are at it again. A new baby rhino named Kofi Annan is not relevant to Kofi Annan the person [8]. Why are you doing this? It is wasting the time of other editors who have to remove it. maxsch (talk) 18:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not taking a break, I am writing the second part of my book.[9] My edit is correct, and your view must not be accurate. BBC news is a very good source of encyclopedia article. I read it, and my edit follows the 5 pillars of WikiPedia rules. What rule have I violated, what time have I wasted? Why do you say that this rhino is not relevant to Kofi. I am a lawyer and judge, and I studied 4 year of law, and 4 years of philosophy; I learned argument and debate at the No. 1 school here, Ateneo de Manila; now please tell me, that the honor given to him by naming the rhino is utterly irrelevant. As a Filipino editor, I contributed here, devoted my time, efforts and energy in good faith, to make WikiPedia a good encyclopedia amids attacks on it, regarding reliability, vandalism, etc. If you do take a cursory perusal of the edits and article by WikiPedia Filipino editors especially on movies and actors here, you will be shocked that they are made and edited even without sources or citations. My edits are all supported by top newspapers. I admit that on the part of medicine and science edits, I could not cope with the brilliance of doctors and science experts users here. But on this point I edited, I am insulted that my edit would just be deleted without the benefit of other users or editors' or admin's nods. It is pathetic that after I add this great news to HONOR this great man, my edit would land in the can. Please read the entire article of BBC news. The rhino was named to HONOR this UN guy who did so many great things. And you say this is not relevant. If this is not, then get the consensus of other editors. You, know, in our Philippine and even USA Supreme Courts, justices are highly divided on matters of education, religion etc. But this rhino and the name, for sure, there is no doubt that there is relevance. It will be a sad day for this great encyclopedia, if just because an editor or even an administrator's taste or cognition, a good edit would be deleted, without any good reason. It is really a sad day for us users. -- --Florentino floro (talk) 05:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Florentino, I would have to agree with User:Maxschmelling on this. Content in articles, especially about living people, should be relevant to the topic of the article. Yes, the rhino was named to honor Kofi, but what does this tell us about Kofi Annan that's important? Nothing. Such information is considered simple trivia that should be avoided. To illustrate: I'm sure many baby rhinos are named after famous people. If we added each one to the article on rhinos, it would certainly become a mess very quickly. (For a quick example of what I mean by "a mess", see the "Popular culture" heading in the carnivorous plant article; it's been inflated so heavily with quick one-liners about which video games or tv shows featured carnivorous plants that it's become a worthless section and needs to be cut down to size or eliminated.) The point is that while Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia and that gives us the latitude to include more information, we should be mindful of what we include--that it's on topic. For example, a news story from one of your sources on, perhaps, an update on the conservation status of the rhino or discovery of more in the wild would not be considered trivia and could be included in the article. I hope you understand the difference between trivia and a direct, relevant piece of information. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 14:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, thanks Rkitko. I now stand corrected. I just had rounds of insults from my very own Filipino co-users / editors here. I have nothing against foreign editors, correcting or even banning me. If you read my User page, a cursory perusal of the same reveals my fight against - this kind of Filipino Injustice, hypocrisy, anger, bitterness in a broken world of materialism ... - and against Filipino corrupt and hypocrite Crab mentality "rage" or embattled powerful people. Its everywhere. Thus, I enjoyed sharing my life and contributions here in WikiPedia, even if many forum member stayed away from Wiki since many users are smart according to them. I like Wiki, since foreign editors are fair, respectful LIKE YOU, and so objective. Take for example the doctor who even warned me of blocking. I asked for apology, since I saw that he contributed 30,000 edits here, since 2004. Why should I not correct myself vis-a-vis such PILLAR of Wiki. I am just a lawyer and judge, who made so many mistakes according to that doctor admin here on science, health, etc. I appreciate that kind of message and admonition: fair enough. But what I hate is - my very own Filipino editors, users and even admins, deleting my own work or article with a visible hidden agenda. I am very much surprised that not even one foreign admin or user participated in the deletion. I worked on the article (Standout Philippine events 2006-2008) for 2 years, and it contained visibly my impeccable predictions, which were noticed and decided by them to be so selective. In the first round of deletion debate, there was no consensus, but in the second rehash round, they won. I admire how you write your message in my talk page and in your talk page. Wiki is not just an OBJECT, it is alive, since all of us whether editors or admins devote our time to make permanent footprints in history. We will never be forgotten by generations, and many will cite our works. You know, when the doctor admin. warned me, it was blessing in disguise, since I had time to WRITE the second part of my book and finished the same (PDF format and WORD, 404 pages); Samuel Blankson suggested so in Facebook; I intend to upload it in Lulu.com ebook and paperback.[10] Also, I wanted to write a good article on coconut oil etc. as we discussed, but I am concentrating on finishing my book for Lulu.com. Best wishes. -- --Florentino floro (talk) 05:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] URLs to news stories

I have left several messages in the recent past about your insertion of URLs of "news stories" in numerous articles. I have tried to explain that this is usually to the detriment of articles, as they get flooded with bits of information that usually loose their relevance rapidly.

For instance, you added an URL to three different pages suggesting that policosanol prevents cardiovascular disease. Even a superficial look at the evidence shows that this is a canard, and just adding URLs indiscriminately will not give the reader the full picture on the issue. If you suspect a story might be relevant, posting the URL on the talkpage with an explanation is generally a better idea.

I hope you understand my point. Your content contributions are valued, but you must really stop stuffing random news stories into otherwise carefully edited encyclopedia articles. People have been blocked in the past for similar behaviour. JFW | T@lk 12:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect - when I read the news article, the news would fit to 3 different articles; I deemed it wise to include it in heart attack since it prevents the same; alright, I stand corrected and next time I would just limit one news URL to one article or bio here; I thought that my edit would in the future aid RESEARCHERS about the diverse uses of this thing; my point is: if researchers would like sources or links on this thing on the news, then, if they only open heart attack, they would not find it; example, if a doctor or herbalist / scientist would like to find cures for heart attacks, and if my URL is not inserted there, how would such researcher inter alia be able to quickly discover this thing? I suggest that even if I contributed so much in Wikipedia please note that I am here just for a year or less; so, it would be prudent therefore, to delete, amend my wrong edits; please examine my other contributions and I contributed heavily to expand stubs, especially on Filipino movie stars using URLs of gma news video. I hope you understand my predicament. -- --Florentino floro (talk) 13:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

You have responded both here and on my talkpage. I don't think any news URLs should be added to articles in the fashion you have done. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news archive. It provides the general picture, not necessarily "this just in". That's what Wikinews is for.

Being here for a year is good and well, and I am aware of your other work. The fact that your background is not in medicine is not relevant - the same would apply to edits on any other topic, from forrestry to The Simpsons. But I urge you to follow the advice of myself and several other editors to stop using Wikipedia as a news archive. JFW | T@lk 14:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, sir, I would try my best to provide a general picture instead of just news only. Thanks. -- --Florentino floro (talk) 08:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Instead of creating a new article...

Why not improve an existing one? If an article about a subject doesn't exist, fine go ahead, but creating POV/content forks is a bad idea. --Howard the Duck 14:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I did read it. And upon cursory perusal of the same, my newly created article on GMA resignation calls is not a violation of FORK, but falls within its well-defined WHAT IT IS NOT:"xxx What content/POV forking is not; There are some things that may occur from time to time that may be mistaken for content forking, when that is not necessarily the case. Some of them are listed here. Essentially, it is generally acceptable to have different levels of detail of a subject on different pages, provided that each provides a balanced view of the subject matter. Note that meeting one of the descriptions listed here does not mean that something is not a content fork -- only that it is not necessarily a content fork." For which reason, I added the tag that the older but poorly sourced and not scholarly written article should be merged into my newly created landmark article. If my article would be merged thereat, or if I would instead improve the old article which only deals with one domain, that is, the Broadband ZTE deal, then, the MINUTE TO MINUTE Timeline of GMA's downfall would surely be understated if not untold. My article is for HISTORY's sake, for the unfolding events today, that is, GMA's facing death, bloodshed, and the unveiling of the truth. -- --Florentino floro (talk) 04:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Minute by minute timelines generally fall in the domain of Wikinews, not Wikipedia. Also, instead of creating a new article, why not improve the existing article? It will save everybody's time.

And please, can't you just get to the point in your replies and not go around in circles? Nobody wants to read lengthly replies. --Howard the Duck 05:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Do not teach me how to submit my valid argument. I am a lawyer / judge who is noted for debates. Try to make Wikipedia a good encyclopedia, rather than vandalizing my scholarly written articles, by your literal interpretation of Wiki rules to tailor to your futile argument. --Florentino floro (talk) 06:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Now you're being completely inconsistent with everything you've said. You say you appreciate that everyone is equal on Wikipedia, yet you claim to write better and superior articles than everyone else. You say you are correct because you are noted for debates, and because you went to Ateneo, and because your politician friends are impressed with you, yet this very act makes you guilty of appealing to your own authority--one of the worst sins in debating. --Migs (talk) 06:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Objection to deletion: Rebuttal Thesis

Why should you cite my previous deleted article? I stand by my principle that its deletion was not only unfair, not only against Wiki standards or 5 pillars, not only against the truth, neutrality and objectivity, but as second round rehash of deletion, my formerly deleted article was deleted due to personal tastes defined as hidden agenda of vengeance. Simply put, just because I worked for 2 years for that deleted article, it does not mean that I will prevail over the concerted efforts by Filipino editors to delete it. While crab mentality might not be the proper term, and while vendetta might not be the technical term, suffice it to say, that I remain here as merely one editor. Surprisingly, I lament that my own very co-Filipino editors would delete my very own historical and paranormal / spiritually inspired article which carved the annals or chronicles of Philippine Judicial History. The former deletion is not only an insult to my painful editing (to predict the dire pains that will befell upon the internet and corridors of power), but this second deletion is too much, to bear; and now, technicalities, and long citations of Wiki rules (amid hiding the inner contents and exceptions thereof, and grey areas, WHAT FORK is not) are utilized to delete my scholarly written article. Look at the poorly sourced and not expanded first article. It was lazily written, and the author and other users, just forgot about it, even if MOUNTING calls, inter alia, are unfolding, but the article was not even read or edited to make it Wiki quality article. If the courts of law in the Philippines once accused me of claiming to be the Angel of Death, if I begged for mercy to unveil the truth from my very own[11]counsel of record Rene Saguisag, not just once, but 3 times (the last being at a Hotel on August 29, 2006, to tell him what will happen to him, to Internet users and to all those who bury the truth), and if I repeatedly called him regarding the dire prophecies, lest they scatter around, Dulce Saguisag faced the music I was singing at midnights, Psalm 109 / 73.[12] Now I am again faced by technicalities. Like you, I read Wiki, but the way you read it, it compromised the truth, going into my very own persona. I ask all of you to read the 5 pillars of Wiki and what Fork is not. Verily, Mr. Jun Lozada, Jr. this morning (lambasted and accused my classmate Dep. Executive Secretary for legal affairs, Manny Gaite[13], my seatmate for 4 years in the Ateneo, who also ridiculed me and failed to return my 6 books, for which reason I cursed Ateneo de Manila classes 82, 83, 84, inter alia; Benjamin Abalos also rejected by resume, since he said that the Justices are angry at me, due to the 8 medical surgeries they suffered; Nonoy (his best friend and friend of Mr. Arsenio Abalos, Biyaheng Pinoy) was the one who asked me to submit my resume, and I did. I also submitted my resume and went to Margarito Teves[14] (before Pryde Henry Teves faced the music, the Psalms; as Sec. Eduardo Ermita (before his son lost to Leviste in Batangas) and my classmate Manny Gaite (who is now grilled in the Senate this 11 am as he allegedly kidnapped Lozada and gave the 8 bundles of P 500,000,to Lozada, that was on TV) asked me to apply to the secretaries, inter alia; I submitted my resume to Aquilino Pimentel and his 3 staff and Director interviewed me but was afraid to face me, and thereafter he was operated pinched nerves after the aortic surgery of Miguel Arroyo; Lozada said that in the Philippines, there are many legal luminaries in our legal system, but there is no justice system since all are insisting on technicalities to bury the truth in the name of "legal". ZTE and Lozada articles may be included to IMPROVE crab mentality, in the same manner, that I am writing a manuscript on WORD to improve Psalm 109, the most powerful biblical curse I ever used to imprecate crab mentality forum and blogspot / internet users, inter alia. We users need to expand Wiki to make it and improve it to a better encyclopedia where users like Foreign editors who are very objective, would make it a better book for our future generations. Parenthetically, before I wrote the deleted article of 2006-2007 Standout events, I read Wiki rules on how to write [[15]] this memo into an encyclopedia article. But many Filipino users like accordion made duets or trios researching loopholes, digging Wiki rules in the name of vengeance. Sayang itong article na ito, if you would not be able to read my book that will be uploaded in Lulu.com. Lest I be misconstrued, I do not claim that I have the power to annihilate or as understatement to destroy, since it is the power to tax that is supreme. My GIFT is devastating and more than that. How can I defend my thesis here, in this discussion, against non-deletion of this article, citing paranormal or curse data, if I am only one here against Filipino users and editors. Also, lest I be misinterpreted, again, I even praised and stood corrected when a foreign admin / doctor here gracefully corrected me on edits on health and medicine, to the extent of reminding about blocking my account. Another kind foreign editor also graciously sided with a Filipino user who corrected me. He even deleted my articles on coconut healing oil, but I never complained. He was so professional, being from the UK. But, lest I be misinterpreted, each Filipino user must read between the lines. IN TIME, my dire predictions creep crept and will creep upon ... I have read the 5 pillars, I have read FORK and what it is not, and I have read the ZTE article which, sad to say, was poorly written, sourced and a low class article. How can my scholarly and direly predicted article be just merged or direly deleted? Tell me. Rebut each and every sentence here, for truth's sake. Cite FORK and what Fork is not. Do not be selective. What is your hidden agenda. This article is the FUTURISTIC reading of day to day downfall of GMA. Supposing GMA continuous up t0 2020, supposing on the other hand, that she is assassinated, or deposed, or jailed, and forthwith? Read my talk page of Teresita de Castro: how I predicted there on July 11, her enthronement, on Dec. 4. Sayang naman kung matatanggal lang ito, just because of misreading FORK. Please read professionally, in Wiki style and objectively what Fork is not. I ask you to contribute to this unfolding article by merging the older and poorly written article to this article. I am a prophet, I never commit mistake, I am worth my psychic salt, and history fairly judged me. On August 22, 2005, I lectured for one hour to the very KIND (yes he was, it was not his fault but that of the 8 medically operated Justices) Raul M. Gonzalez, and he asked me that he will talk to the justices. I told him: Sir, please give me a job, so that the decision next year would not be released, I am so afraid of the dire consequences. That was the month, and after that I talked to my classmate Mayor Jerry P. Trenas, Justice Apolinario Bruselas, who penned the rape case, and Justice Lucas Bersamin, whose cousin James and LUIS Bersamin were gunned down in their brains. I lectured for 4 days for 5 hours to the 2nd most powerful person in our Court Leonardo A. Quisumbing as I denounced and cursed Regino C. Hermosisima, Jr. who fixed my case. I have no remorse, since because of these HYPOCRISY, I am here with you. But you deleted all these TRUTHS and FACTS. Once deleted I can never write these truths on your poorly created 2006 -2007 events. You should deleted that article since WikiPedia is an encyclopedia, and not WikiNews. Why create yearly an article it if FORK, there is already a Philippine History article. I repeat, I am the only User is Wiki who is world-famous and a prophet, all I wrote were written in full Trance and I do not commit mistake. I submit my thesis to you in this discussion page.

Ok, can you condense this to one short paragraph? I'm too lazy to read all of this. --Howard the Duck 07:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Many Filipinos - users vandalized my articles, in the name of merger, deletion, etc., forgetting the letter and spirit of the 5 pillars / FORK and what is not FORK. [I never complained against good foreign editors. They have no hidden or personal agenda]. But Filipino editors (I say this as authority, since I registered in more than 140 forums, and knew the definition of crab mentality). You and many Filipino users prejudged my articles by vandalism, without even bothering to read and consider from the objective point of Wiki view like foreign editors, my submissions, argument and links (blogs), to support my several thesis. My merged articles lost their important links, edits and ingredients in the name of Wiki Rules which were used to tailor tastes and subjective insults. Its' your choice. Vide many Filipino stub and long articles of cinema which are poorly sourced without citations or references; but you do not bother to vandalize them or suggest their deletion / merger. Most of them are ADS, advertisements and spams. My articles are from the point of Wiki, treasure-prophetic articles which would be used later on by future Wiki readers. I repeat: It's your choice. --Florentino floro (talk) 07:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, adding AFD and merge and other cleanup notices is NOT VANDALISM. Please read WP:VAND. And the reason why your works are being targeted, well, read your lenghtly user talk page. A lot of people, not just Filipinos, have complaints on your editing patterns. --Howard the Duck 07:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

As I told you, and repeatedly said: I am willing to be corrected since I want to learn. Most of you know how to use the computer; today, even Grade II students know how to use PCs. I only touched internet when I was googled on April, 2006. Why should I complain when I need to learn, especially, as you see, the Wiki Rules were made and edited by so many users, where the contents are not the real policies. I told you to look at many spam advertisement and poorly written articles I expanded on movies, cinemas here. It is nightmare. Now, I admit that most of my edits are not really summary style, since many stubs and articles are too short and would be edited per rare news on them, so I added more than just a sentence. But I added summary edits on long articles. It is a case to case basis. I am a prophet, and I know all those who inspect my works, select the defects, and choose Wiki rules to pin me down. You are not lawyers, and I am one. We mastered the art to deceive. We can write a decision to seal the destiny of a generation or to award $ billion worth of properties using intricate rules and jurisprudence, this is what Lozada says: legal system, not the "justice system"; like here in Wiki, there are rules, but they are not the policy of Wiki. The spirit and the letter must govern; you know statutory construction, it applies to Wiki. If we discuss in this talk page, about birds, titles, flu or ducks I cannot write lenghtily on this. But the first article you deleted and this second one, were the product of my 8 years toil, labor and nightly curses. I worked on the sources of the article first deleted for 2 years. Do you know that I spent 6 years of my life, every midnights CURSING the corrupt judiciary so that, as LUIS promised me, the 2 parents and wife of 2 Chief Justices Reynato Puno and Hilario Davide, Jr. would mercilessly died of surgery and lingering illness AFTER the release of my decision. Do you know how every night since 1999, I obeyed them and labored to ignited by violet lights, the 2007 fires that halved the logo and seals of the Supreme Court, Comelec and Court of Appeals, and Muntinlupa Metropolitan Trial Court? Why not behave like the Uk and French admins here who corrected me, in Wiki style. Filipino users here are selective, they want to destroy good articles in the name of wiki "legals. Read the contents of the deleted article and this article: the treasure is there, deeply, and inside: the Curse; will they stay only in blog, forums and be deleted in this great encyclopedia? I repeat: as I told Rene Saguisag: It's your choice. -- --Florentino floro (talk) 08:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok so what does that to do with my previous comment? --Howard the Duck 14:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Read the news, Alfredo Benipayo's brain was the reason for his collapse and St. Paul Hospital Iloilo City hospitalization. Clear? Now? --Florentino floro (talk) 06:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

How is that connected to vandalism? --Howard the Duck 07:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Dean De Los Angeles, in 1981 told us that - no amount of lecture will convince a person who already made a stand beforehand. - --Florentino floro (talk) 05:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

There you go appealing to authority again. Nobody cares what Dean De Chicago said, and even if they did, you're still evading his question. If you look at his history, he's perfectly reasonable in debates with other people, Filipinos and foreigners alike. In fact, you are the one who appears to have a stance so rigid and calcified that you're alienating every single person on Wikipedia. --Migs (talk) 08:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Timeline: 2008 Calls for Resignation of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo

An article that you have been involved in editing, Timeline: 2008 Calls for Resignation of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline: 2008 Calls for Resignation of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. Thank you. †Bloodpack† 08:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I will participate even if the Filipino editors there are the same who made mockery of my first article. Even if the discussion would be turned to Filipino moro-moro or farce so to speak, since all the former Filipino editors already pre-judged my article/s, I repeatedly said to them: "It's your choice!", as I tossed and stated these words to my counsel of record in the dwarf world famous case, Rene Saguisag, not once, not twice but 10 times before the November 8, 2008 fate. -- --Florentino floro (talk) 08:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Mr Floro, Wikipedia is not a court of law. The purpose of this AfD debate is to reach a consensus as to whether this article improves the overall project or detracts from it. Your long speeches in which you bring up a myriad of other topics not related to the qualities of the article do not help your case at all, in fact they cause other editors to doubt your motives and, if I may say, question whether you have even the most basic understanding of what Wikipedia is or how it supposed to function. If you took the time to read a few other AfD debates, you might gain a better understanding of how the process is supposed to function. I might add that bringing up the nationality or race of those involved in the debate is in extremely poor taste. Beeblbrox (talk) 15:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Noted. Were it not for the invitation here to join the discussion, I would have not joined the same. It is not the race or nationality. I am not attacking any race, since I am a Filipino. I lament the way the Filipino editors read and interpret or cite the Wiki rules just to delete my scholarly penned article, in the name of votes or process. If I attack a foreign user, then, I do violate Wiki policies and rules. If I attack this Filipino user, then I would suffer since I am Filipino. But, the finer points of my submitted argument is: the interpretation and twisting of the intents, letter and spirit of Wiki rules, by Filipino editors to delete my article is purely pathetic and Wikipedia suffers to loose a good article. - --Florentino floro (talk) 13:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Maybe this would help

I've noticed that you seem to be having some trouble. Perhaps This is a solution that would allow you to continue your very active participation at Wikipedia without all of the conflict and turmoil. Good Luck Beeblbrox (talk) 03:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, thanks. Before you suggested this, I was really looking for a foreign admin or user who would edit my work to protect these against vandalism (by Filipino crab editors or users, who are well versed in technicalities here). If you read this talk page of mine, I never complained versus foreign editors. But the moment I see a Filipino editor touch my work or article, I double time my efforts. Now, I proved here and in the deletion articles that one or 2 Filipino editors in chorus would at all cost vandalize my articles; they are groups although, acting as one. I don't mind really that my edits and articles are deleted by foreigners since even before they were deleted like the ones on coconut healing oil, I know that it would be hard to defend them. But, but, but, the 2006-2007 standout events which a Filipino editor here deleted in round 2 of the AFD, noticed my stunning and impeccable predictions inserted in the same. First, these crabs tried to attack it by saying it is selective. So, they fooled me by making me labor to add links to make it neutral; so I wasted one week daily to make it up. Then this Filipino guy (remember, that I suffered the 8 years longest suspension in judicial history due to University of Santo Thomas' Alfredo Benipayo, who was operated angioplasty on Feb. 21, 2001 as I did curse him midnights (this is just one of the 800 I did). If you foreign editors or admins would not know these CRITICAL facts (of most Filipinos here being used by my enemies here to vandalize my work, it would be hard to discover). It is a web of lies towards vendetta. I know them as psychic, although I debunked psi, yet the world reports branded me thus, forcing me to repeat here that as Catholic I instead believe in St. Paul's highest gifts of the Holy Spirit, debunking psi. IN FINE, thanks, and I want to be mentored or adopted ONLY by any foreign user not connected with them or had voted in my deleted articles. So, please help me be adopted. I put this hereunder. Parenthetically, I donated my book[16] (Vide my user page) to UST and about 40 top Philippine libraries as my legacy, but UST library might have vandalized my book since I cannot find the URL OPAC. Just sayin. - --Florentino floro (talk) 06:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

{{adoptme|20080221060933}} .

--Florentino floro (talk) 06:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Despite my inexperience, I'm willing to adopt you. I'll also help you overhaul your talkpage since it's quite hard to read. I know what you had felt these past days (vandalism and all) and I also have the same problems. Please contact me via my talkpage for your reply. And Wikipedia isn't spelled as WikiPedia. And although I'm a Filipino like you, I consider you AS ONE MY MY INSPIRATIONS IN LIFE. Sadly, I'm not an admin here but i'm willing to help you out constructively (cleaning out your edits that were vandalized, etc.). And try to save your article from deletion by putting a subpage for your articles that will be/could be targeted for deletion, sir. You need to check your spelling & grammar often. -iaNLOPEZ1115-/-TaLKBaCK-/-Vandalize it 11:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I admit that my talk page is quite hard to read, but I would like to make it better. However, due to inexeperience, I left it like that instead of using reference templates, since I have many enemies here who are Filipino users editors. I admit that often I never checked the spelling and grammar, often lazy, yeah, my mistakes. Please read the contents of my talk page. It will be an inspiration to all Filipinos not only on spiritual Gifts of the Holy Spirit, but on my crusade against Philippine corruption and hypocrisy. I am apolitical and I hate politics. I never sided with any politician. Please preserve all the links in my talk page. I am finishing the second part of my book[17], since the first part, which is sourced from my user page, was published last year. - --Florentino floro (talk) 05:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I left a note on Ian's talk page here . Hope that helps.--Lenticel ^(talk) 02:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I opted to have an adopter, to protect me against Filipino editors or users who have personal agenda against me, although hiding these/it; I never asked for adoption, to teach me how to deal with Tambayan or Filipino editors; I welcome corrections, advises when it comes to my contributions not regarding Filipino editors, otherwise I would have deleted this adoption thing. I am all out to fight Filipino editors who vandalize my articles. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a rant, blog and persecutory vehicle by Tambayan Filipino editors. - --Florentino floro (talk) 05:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Florentino, I would urge you to tone down your language regarding this: "I am all out to fight Filipino editors who vandalize my articles." Wikipedia is not the place for a battle. If true vandalism is occurring, there are places to report such, but what's been happening to your articles is not vandalism. Those editors have taken your articles through the proper channels for discussion because they thought the articles violated a couple policies, duplicated content, etc.; all valid reasons to bring an article up for discussion. I see no Filipino conspiracy against you. --Rkitko ^(talk) 13:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, sir. You are perfectly right. It is just that here these Filipino users did have a head start. They can use the Wiki rules in proper processes to achieve their ends. But what is the truth, really? Was there vandalism or not. Of course, I have one vote. I respect any and all foreign editors' kind messages like yours. All of you are very objective and are highly principled. Remember that I never attacked you for deleting my articles. Thanks for visiting my page, and I welcome any and all your comments. In fact, I would like to have you as my adopter, but I am not sure if you are not busy. Regards. And if you have time, please monitor my works. - --Florentino floro (talk) 05:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] troll

it looks to me this guy's just a troll. take a look @ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Time_travel#Impeccable_Prophecies —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.152.52.122 (talk) 01:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't ever accuse me of troll. I am a prophet; I am Phlippine Judge Florentino V. Floro. I have more than 2,800 edits here and contributions and scholarly written articles. Please do not vandalize my talk page. There is nothing wrong with my scholarly penned message in the talk page of Time Travel. You do not know the deepest secrets of the universe. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. --Florentino floro (talk) 05:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] First, let's archive (again)

As the adopter, I would like to ask you to archive your talk page, because it is over 80 kilobytes long. I'm not forcing you in any way. I'll be back by Thursday afternoon since I have to do more important things like schoolwork. Thank you po and good afternoon. -iaNLOPEZ1115 · TaLKBaCK · Vandalize it 07:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, sure. But I do not know how. I was helped by another user in this. Sorry, for my poor learning on this, so please be the one to archive it. Regards. --Florentino floro (talk) 14:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)