User talk:Gubernatoria

Registered Wikipedia contributor since 14 July 2007.

speedy resolution

As one of the reviewing administrators, I regret that the speedy nomination on Latukan had ever been placed -- it was among a large group nominated for deletion contrary to policy by a user who has now been blocked for doing so, by consensus at WP:AN/I. Deletion has been prevented, and please feel free to remove the notice. DGG (talk) 18:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Personal Sandbox

/Gubernatoria sandbox

Zabag Kingdom

Do we have any reference/s that Zabag is no longer considered to be theorized a part of the Philippines? Philippine idea was based upon the original authors of the Chinese accounts themselves. http://asiapacificuniverse.com/pkm/sanfotsizabag.htm Being in historical conflict doesn't mean we should believe on primary sources. First point of view is that it is in China, second is that it is in the Khmer lands (Cambodia) and the third is in the Philippines.--The Wandering Traveler^{WIKIPROJECT UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES NEEDS YOUR SUPPORT!} 06:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Scholars do not know where Zabag was. Both the Chinese and Muslim accounts could refer to just about anywhere in the South China Sea Basin. The only mention of the Philippines in the online reference above is pure conjecture - not at all scholarly, and not found in the original sources themselves.

No doubt many people still dream that Zabag was Filipino, just as many people still believe the Code of Kalantiaw was a genuine Filipino document. But the first actual reference to the Philippines is from the Chinese in 972.

"The Sung Dynasty was almost literally supported by tariff from revenues on overseas trade, so it is not surprising that from this period comes the first positive reference to political states in or near the Philippines. An entry in the official Sung History for the year 972 records the first administrative action ... .

Scott needs to be read in full by any serious historian of Filipino pre-Spanish history. Gubernatoria (talk) 09:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar

Thanks for the barnstar. I appreciate it, and I have moved it to my user page. One of these days I'm going to get around to reorganizing that user page. Cheers. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK

Could you nominate some of the articles you expand for Did you know? since I noticed that many of them qualify submission.--23prootie (talk) 10:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Image deletion questioned

In this edit, an image was deleted with an edit summary saying, "(→Prehistory: delete an obviously incorrectly labelled image (again))". I have not reverted that deletion, but here I did restore the same image similarly deleted from another article. My edit summary for the restoration said, "(Restored removed image; mislabeling is not obvious to me. Cited clarifying source. See also http://www.google.com.ph/search?q=ifugao+house)". The clarifying source which I cited was this. You might want to take a second look at this image deletion in both articles. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Image deletion appropriate

With respect, the image file says the photo was taken on 28 May 2007. 2007 is not pre-Hispanic, it is post-Hispanic, and post-First Republic, and post-American, and post Commonwealth, and post Second, Third and Fourth Republics too. 2007 is also not Prehistoric. The structure in the image therefore cannot reasonably be labelled with any of the timeframes of the preceding sentence. That is also the reason why I deleted the image from the other article where the structure was described as pre-Historic. In Ifugao, and the rest of the Cordillera, traditional style houses (such as the one in the image), usually last 10 to 40 years, with 50 about the maximum. The culture in the Cordillera was not to renovate or restore traditional style buildings, but just to move on and build a new one when the old one became too dilapidated. Since the Ifugao people have become more sedentary, and tend not to move around as much, ruinous old traditional style structures are now demolished and new ones erected on the same spot. There are NO prehistoric houses in existence in the Cordilleras. The weather and the available timber militate against that. Gubernatoria (talk) 13:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I had taken it that the Ifugao-ness of the image was what was being questioned rather than the prehispanic-ness. I don't have strong feelings about this one way or the other but would opine that if the images are otherwise useful to the articles, the captions might be altered to say something like "Ifugao style" rather than "Ifugao". I'll leave you and other editors more engaged re these images than I to sort out whether or not to include them. Cheers. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I did change the caption to "Ifugao traditional-style" and relocate the image to "Culture", but that was reverted back by another recently active very vigorous editor. I have no energy for these continuous reversions-counter reversions, and since the other editor is changing everything on a daily basis, I've given up on this article. Gubernatoria (talk) 04:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Date of eruption of Mayon Volcano

Excuse me, but you keep undoing my edits to Mayon Volcano. Can you please explain why? I think the exact date of the eruption starting should be included. The articles on Stromboli, Cleveland Volcano, and Mount Redoubt all have the exact date the eruption started. --The High Fin Sperm Whale (Talk • Contribs) 20:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

According to Phivolcs the first eruption for 2009 was Wednesday 28 October 2009. You kept inserting the date as November 11. But of more importance at the moment is that it is currently erupting. When the eruption has ceased, then it may be appropriate to include the date of 28 October 2009, or it may be more appropriate to give the date of the major eruption (if that happens). In any event, I have included the Phivolcs bulletin as the reference rather than a non-official source. Gubernatoria (talk) 05:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Then shouldn't the date of the eruption starting be included? --The High Fin Sperm Whale (Talk • Contribs) 20:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Which date? The date you say, the date Phivolcs said, or the date of the major eruption yet to come? Gubernatoria (talk) 02:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I guess the date Phivolcs said. My date was actually a blunder, because I got the date the minor ash eruptions started, not the megaboom. --The High Fin Sperm Whale (Talk • Contribs) 06:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I suggest when it seems to stop erupting that the date be inserted then, and the "currently erupting" notice be removed at same time. Gubernatoria (talk) 06:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

WP Volcanoes

Hello. If you haven't noticed, I've started a structural reorganization of WikiProject Volcanoes. So far, I've beutified the head page and moved a lot of the stuff to subpages of the project, so as not to bulk the main page. As an active member of the project (and its founder...), this is just a notice about what's going on. Comments go on the talk page. Happy holidays, ResMar 14:08, 25 December 2009 (UTC)