Jump to content

User talk:Gubernatoria

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Alexrexpvt (talk | contribs) at 10:20, 5 January 2013. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)[reply]

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 TravelerWIKIPROJECT UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES NEEDS YOUR SUPPORT! 06:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 ... [1].
Scott needs to be read in full by any serious historian of Filipino pre-Spanish history. Gubernatoria (talk) 09:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

{{Governor-General of the Philippines}}

I undid your edit on Template:Governor-General of the Philippines largely because of the following reasons:

1. First, is that your removal and addition has no historical basis. Dalrymple and Draper has never been governors of Manila, only Drake did. According to Zaide and other historical writers (I made an extensive research while I did that template), Dalrymple is only an army officer belonging to Draper's battalion. And he was a surveyor and geographer, not willing to be in politics. Though it can be said that he was elected governor as successor to Drake, Dalrymple was never proclaimed as governor because the British left Manila at the time his term supposed to be started. Drake was sent by the British East India Company, say Madras Council to facilitate the successful entering of Drake in Manila. Well, since the coming of the British, Drake has never been into picture. He only came in November 2, 1762 and he was sent in Manila because he had good records in governance in India. Notice that Draper was the one who deserves to be the governor, as he successfully conquered and defeated Spanish forces (remember that Legazpi became governor-general after successful conquering), and that was Draper thought of that time. Now, when Drake came into Manila, Draper started to throw bitter arguments with him, like he deserves to be the governor but the Council did not grant that right. Drake persisted to become governor, he has the talent, higher records that Draper and honor. So, ten days after Drake's arrival in Manila, in November 12, 1762, Draper left Manila and returned to England, where he got promotions and was sent to an expedition regarding increasing tension of American Revolution. So what is your basis to add Dalrymple and Draper? 2. Next, I made the template divided into the subsection "British occupation". You know, 1761 was the start of the British attacks, but the actual occupation started in 1762. No reason to call it from 1761.

3. Third, naming "British occupation" does not mean it is solely describing British governors. (I suggest reading a history book). Remember that during the British occupation, three governors took an oath at the same time: in 1761, long before the British attacks, Spanish governor-general Pedro de Arandia died. Manuel Rojo was the Manila archbishop that time. Because of some sort of Hispanic law regarding the union of the church and state, it is expected that the archbishop will replace the governor-general in case the latter died or was removed from office. So that was Rojo did. He himself recognized as the governor-general temporarily until the arrival of new chief executive. But then came the British. During Spanish resistance against the British, oidor of the Audiencia and lieutenant General Simon de Anda saw weaknesses with Rojo that they made quarreling with the war. When the British successfully conquered Manila, Rojo conceded with the British and as a token, Rojo himself was given the honor to become the ceremonial governor of the Philippines while Drake the real governor. Anda on the other hand, together with his men and several soldiers, traveled to Bacolor, Pampanga where they established provisionary government of the Philippines. Well, he then became governor of that government. Therefore, there are three governors that time, and that section on the template is not limited to the British only.

I am happy to hear from you.--JL 09 q?c 15:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote the following in British occupation of the Philippines and provided substantiating citations.

Britain declared war against Spain on 4 January 1762. On 6 January 1762 the British Cabinet led by the Prime Minister, the Earl of Bute, agreed to attack Havana in the West Indies, and approved Colonel William Draper's 'Scheme for taking Manila with some Troops, which are already in the East Indies' in the East.[2] Draper was commanding officer of the 79th Regiment of Foot, which was currently stationed in Madras, India. On 18 January 1762, Spain issued their own declaration of war against Britain.[3] On 21 January 1762 King George III signed the instructions to Draper to implement his Scheme, emphasising that by taking advantage of the 'existing war with Spain' Britain might be able to assure her post-war mercantile expansion. There was also the expectation that the commerce of Spain would suffer a 'crippling blow'. On arrival in India, Draper's brevet rank became brigadier general.[4]

On 24 September 1762 [5], the small but technically proficient force of British Army regulars and British East India Company soldiers, supported by the ships and men of the East Indies Squadron of the British Royal Navy, sailed into Manila Bay from Madras.[1]

The expedition, led by Brigadier General William Draper and Rear-Admiral Samuel Cornish, captured Manila, "the greatest Spanish fortress in the western Pacific", and attempted to establish free trade with China.[6]

The Spanish defeat was not really surprising. The Royal Governor of the Philippines, Don Pedro Manuel de Arandia had died in 1759 and his replacement Brigadier Don Francisco de la Torre had not arrived because of the British attack on Havana in Cuba. Spanish policy was for the Archbishop of Manila to be Lieutenant Governor. In part, because the garrison was commanded by the Archbishop Don Manuel Antonio Rojo del Rio et Vieria, instead of by a military expert, many mistakes were made by the Spanish forces.[7]

Under Spanish rule, the Philippines never paid its own way, but survived on an annual subsidy paid by the Spanish Crown. As a cost saving measure, and because the Spanish authorities never really contemplated a serious expedition against Manila by a European power, the 200 year old fortifications at Manila had not been much improved since first built by the Spanish.[8]

On 5 October 1762 (4 October local calendar), the night before the fall of the walled city of Manila (now called Intramuros), the Spanish military persuaded Archbishop Rojo to summon a council of war. By very heavy battery fire that day, the British had successfully breached the walls of the bastion San Diego, dried up the ditch, dismounted the cannons of that bastion and the two adjoining bastions, San Andes and San Eugeno, set fire to parts of the town, and driven the Spaniards from the walls. The Spanish military recommended capitulation. The archbishop would not consent. The only positive action from the council of war was the dispatch of Oidor Don Simón de Anda y Salazar to the provincial town of Bulacan to organize continued resistance to the British once Manila fell[9]. At that war council, the Real Audencia appointed Anda Lieutenant Governor and Visitor-General.[10][11] That night Anda took a substantial portion of the treasury and official records with him, departing Fort Santigo through the postern of Our Lady of Solitude, to a boat on the Pasig River, and then to Bulacan. He moved headquarters from Bulacan to Bacolor in Pampanga province, which was more secure from the British, and quickly obtained the powerful support of the Augustinians. He raised an army which may eventually have amounted to 10,000 men, almost all ill-armed native Filipinos. On 8 October 1762 Anda wrote to Rojo informing him that Anda had assumed the position of Governor and Capitan-General under statutes of the Indies which allowed for the devolution of authority from the Governor to the Audencia, of which he was the only member not captive by the British. Anda demanded the royal seal, but Rojo declined to surrender it and refused to recognise Anda's self-proclamation as Governor and Capitan-General.[11]

Early success by the British in Manila did not enable them to expand their control over all parts of the Spanish Philippines. In reality they only continuously controlled Manila and Cavite. But Manila was the capital, and key, to the Spanish Philippines, and the British accepted the written surrender of the Spanish government in the Philippines from Archbishop Rojo and the Real Audiencia on 30 October 1762.[11]

That was 1762. NOT 1761. Your preference for a British occupation in 1761 is UNHISTORICAL.

I also note that Zaide (both father and daughter) are flawed in a number of areas, as more rigorous scholarship has since uncovered. Since I had so obviously read the more scholarly articles I had cited in the specific wikipedia article British occupation of the Philippines, your suggestion to me about reading some history books seems somewhat misplaced. Perhaps you might return my edit of Template:Governor-General of the Philippines to the historically correct version, not the discredited version you rely on. Gubernatoria (talk) 01:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FAR

I have nominated History of the Philippines for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Dana boomer (talk) 02:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CCI Notice

Hello, Gubernatoria. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Contributor copyright investigations concerning your contributions in relation to Wikipedia's copyrights policy. The listing can be found here. For some suggestions on responding, please see Responding to a CCI case. Thank you. MER-C 04:26, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Philippine WikiCon

You are invited to the 3rd Philippine Wiki Conference (WikiCon) on May 26, 2012 9am-1pm at the co.lab.exchange in Pasig City. Please fill this form should you signify interest. --Exec8 (talk) 17:45, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed blackout in protest of RA 10175

Dear Gubernatoria,

Greetings!

As a Filipino Wikipedian, I hope you are aware of the passage of Republic Act No. 10175, also known as the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, which was signed into law by President Benigno Aquino III on September 12, 2012. Currently, there is a discussion on the Tambayan, the noticeboard for Philippines-related topics, about a proposed blackout of the English Wikipedia in the Philippines in order to protest the passage of RA 10175, similar to the blackout against SOPA and PIPA held earlier this year. I feel that your input on the subject will definitely help in the discussion.

Please feel free to participate in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines#The Cybercrime Prevention Act, and I hope your input will help the Filipino Wikipedia community determine which is the best course of action against this law. Similarly, we hope to get as much input from as many Wikipedians as possible.

Thank you and maraming salamat po!

Kind regards,

Sky Harbor (talk) 04:35, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Census in the Philippines, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to contain material copied from http://web.archive.org/web/20110511153637/http://www.census.gov.ph/data/pressrelease/2008/pr0830tx.html, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Census in the Philippines saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Alexrexpvt (talk) 10:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ William Henry Scott (1984) PreHispanic Source Materials for the Study of Philippine History ISBN 971-10-0227-2 p65
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gubernatoria&oldid=531427898"