Stricnina

  Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Kingdom of Tondo— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 09:51, 13 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

  Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Kingdom of Tondo, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Jim1138 (talk) 10:47, 13 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

You removed much more than the map. Jim1138 (talk) 10:48, 13 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

BTW: Check the map: File:Tondov.2.png. It has references. Jim1138 (talk) 10:51, 13 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

• sigh* IF LCI (a 900 AD doccuments mentioned the names of ministers and rulers mentioned) , and some books based on the works of , Inquirer, Anton Podsma , Nick Joaquin and Jaime F. Tiongson, W.H. Scot, Luis Camara Dery, by Grace Odal Devora, IIRC and Ambeth Ocampo. and supported by the Documents regarding the India (Sanskrit) Chinese influence (from Chinese / and Spanish accounts *spanish conquistadors) aren't Reliable for you , Sorry its the only thing i can suggest. well try to research .(Theseeker2016 (talk) 10:21, 15 April 2017 (UTC))Reply

Greetings Theseeker2016. Please, I'll welcome any new sources specifically confirming the existence of Rajah Alon (I already know Rajah Alon is bullshit, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt). Sources from Ambeth Ocampo or Nick Joaquin or William Henry Scott are obviously welcome (since they are the definition of academic/peer-reviewed content) but I won't tolerate blogs and badly-written books. I have expressed most of my other concerns not related to Rajah Alon in this section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kingdom_of_Tondo#TheSeeker2016_and_friends_should_REFRAIN_from_undoing_edits._Thank_you. The article needs a clean-up and I'll obviously do the clean-up in the near future, so stay tuned. Stricnina (talk) 10:29, 15 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

You cant remove anything without WP:CONSENSUS i will follow it i will restore (Theseeker2016 (talk) 10:41, 15 April 2017 (UTC))Reply

Theseeker2016, the article will require a clean-up either way, so I'll repeat what you have just said: facts do not need consensus and "wikipedia is not a democracy" (your words). I suggest improvement of the credibility of the webpage. Stricnina (talk) 10:44, 15 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

• • i will only repeat this words, Until it have no PROPER consensus, it will fall on Personal views there this is not against your work we 'Just must be find it out . (Theseeker2016 (talk) 10:51, 15 April 2017 (UTC))Reply

They are NOT "Personal views", Theseeker2016. Stop being mentally dense. I am a proponent of WP:NOR,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research. The page is obviously NOT following Wikipedia guidelines. Stricnina (talk) 10:55, 15 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

No one can remove any main parts of the page without a proper WP:CONSENSUS unless it is formed we're watching you (Theseeker2016 (talk) 02:56, 16 April 2017 (UTC))Reply

Theseeker2016, instead of watching me, you should watch that horrendous webpage FULL OF blogs or 404 sites as sources. All of you contributors should be ashamed of yourselves for creating that monstrous article full of speculations and bullshit. As a proponent of WP:VERIFIABILIY, I have zero tolerance over bullshit claims. Stricnina (talk) 06:02, 16 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

limit the uses of tags in the areas contains obvious and verified citations its seems abusive and if I find it improper I will restore (Theseeker2016 (talk) 06:42, 16 April 2017 (UTC))Reply

Make sure it wont end up to a page similar to the article Fiasco 2010's which contains "nothing" ..

some of editors here are planing to return this page on the previous version that is little or almost to no- information at all i hope it wont end up to that.(Theseeker2016 (talk) 00:57, 17 April 2017 (UTC))Reply

Yes she CAN remove them. Because many of the things the article is saying are NOT in those sources. I have physical copies of most of them in my home library so I know for sure. What's been done in many cases is that the article has drawn so-called logical conclusions based on OTHER things these articles said. Which you cannot do because that's synthesis, which is NOT permitted as explained in WP:Synth. You have to be careful because Scott, Postma, and Odal in particular have very nuanced writing styles. There's an entire section in Scott that explains that a "Ming Dynasty tributary state," for example, does NOT mean that a state is "sinified." Also the article sees that the reference says "gold" and automatically assumes "piloncitos". Which is not necessarily the case. The entire SECTION on Lucoes is based on somebody's interpretation that because the Kingdom of Tondo is in Lusong, the Lucoes must be from Tondo. Which is also not necessarily true. (There's no evidence they're not from Namayan, or Ba-i, or Cainta, or more likely, SeLudong/Maynila.) And just because the Chinese use the word Huang to describe the ruler does NOT mean the political structure of Tondo is an absolute monarchy. As for the word "Kasumuran" in LCI, there's significant scholarly debate over what it means, and it's essential that this uncertainty is reflected in the article. Summing up, you cannot include conclusions even if they're obvious to you. You have to write exactly the terms the source used. The use of technical terms (monarchy, personal union, mandala, sinified, etc) not used by the original sources is a violation of No Original Research- Alternativity (talk) 11:12, 17 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

No User: Alternativity she/he can't , because no Proper WP:CONSENSUS done by both parties because until we find a proper consensus agreed by the Both members i afraid it will be restored (WP:VERIFIABILITY) until we don't have that it be restored (Theseeker2016 (talk) 03:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC))Reply

It will only viewed as a view of a particular party sides (For example; some of the members don't recognized it here as a Kingdom because its Westphalian system so they branding it as a tribe, which is far more wrong but a Mega-sterotypes, not even a sovereign state very missleading.) i hope you get my point we both have the cards for you and Bug :D happy editing! (Theseeker2016 (talk) 03:11, 18 April 2017 (UTC))Reply

Actually, Theseeker2016, if you've read WP:CONSENSUS properly, you should be seeking consensus from the broader community (in this case, the appropriate community is Wikiproject Philippines). Consensus is NOT settling this between the two of you. You're supposed to get inputs from community members, and an admin can decide based on the discourse. Examples are the discussion links I posted on the Kingodm of Tondo talk page regarding the unreliable sources. Some of those reflect consensus going way back to 2011.

Also: ANYBODY gets to remove edits that are a clear violation of WP:No Original Research. You keep bringing up WP:VERIFIABILITY without actually understanding what WP:Reliable Sources. And your friends keep claiming citations (drawing generalizations) for things that are not explicitly stated in the text. As for Kingdom vs. Tribe, the academically acceptable term widely used by scholars in the Philippines is Polity. But your anti-academic friends seem to think scholarly neutrality is a bad thing and keep trying to use Wikipedia as a ethnicist/populist/nationalist propaganda tool. - Alternativity (talk) 17:16, 18 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

we are not - anti accademic , where adding information which is based from the descriptions from the different written accounts (western and non-western views) in fact i was a pro-scholar works i am against in the theories from popular beliefs or a stereotypes. old version are of article are un-scholar because it contains no information . (Theseeker2016 (talk) 05:44, 27 April 2017 (UTC))Reply

Hi. Just clarifying. Why did you include me in a list of people who cited vedicempire.com? (If I did, it must have been many years ago when I wasn't that familiar with wp rules yet, and I apologize for a stupid mistake. But I don't recall ever doing so.) Did you think I'm supporting the use of that site? Because to be honest I'm a little insulted. I've gone out of my way to document existing community consensus against the use of such sites. On another topic, I hope you don't mind unsolicited wp advice, but maybe you want to use a slightly more polite tone? There's value in calling bullsXXt, well, bullsXXt. But it doesn't exactly help our case for NPOV, right? :D Thank you for your cleanup work here. The Pasig River kingdoms are not my primary geographic focus so I'm glad someone else is protecting local history. (While you're at it, Lakandula and Namayan may also merit a close watch. Thanks, - Alternativity (talk) 11:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Alternativity , welcome to my page. I've included you not because I thought you cited vedicempire.com but because you seem to be a contributor in that Wikipedia article. I'm trying to warn as many frequent contributors of that webpage as possible so don't consider it as a personal accusation against your behalf. I also have no idea of the history of that specific Wikipedia article. If what you said is true, then I thank you for being the reasonable one here. But unhistorical statements without proper sources will be removed in the future nonetheless. Citations from blogs will be questioned. I'll come back to that specific webpage when I have more free time in my hands to focus on this laborious task. In the meantime, I'll mark and tag the statements that require proper citations. Stricnina (talk) 11:35, 17 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the clarification. To be honest, I'm deeply relieved to have someone else watching this page who also knows the references. I've been cleaning up this space (and Lakandula) for years. Hehe. The current page has recently been stuffed full of non-academic assertions by editors pushing a popular/populist/nationalist slant. You should have seen it in '07 or '08 when it was hijacked by the Chinese. I don't even want to get into details because people might get ideas again. But needless to say I had to go out and find a translator to disprove assertions based on Chinese language journals. (The translated journals did not say what the article claimed they did.) The people I tagged in the WP:Philippines project page earlier are reasonable admins. If you need any advice or support in enforcing wp rules, you may wanna holler for help there so you're not alone. (Would you mind taking a second look at Ma-i btw, I just finished a cleanup there but I think it could use a second set of eyes. Cheers and happy cleanup. - Alternativity (talk) 11:49, 17 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hehe. As you can see from there, I'm a bit more er... "pa-tweetums" (mister nice guy)... when dealing with vandals than you. I tend to just tag inaccuracies rather than delete them outright, until I have a full arsenal of nuanced alternative sources. So cleanups for just one article can take me months. Hehe. - Alternativity (talk) 11:55, 17 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Alternativity, I understand. I also tend to arm myself with proper sources before adding content into a wiki page although I admit I'm more prone on deleting totally unsourced statements and images. It's because it's usually easier to spot unsourced statements and it's obviously easier to delete them than to add content, which requires effort and scholarly sources. I'll also check Ma-i and I'll let you know if there is anything that I can add. Happy wiki-ing! (is that even a word? Hehehehe) Stricnina (talk) 23:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi there! Not sure what you want to do with this, but I later discovered the "bayangpinagpala" reference is identical to the source cited in academic literature as "Tiongson, J. F. 2008. The Laguna Copperplate Inscription: A New Interpretation Using Early Tagalog Dictionaries. The Paper presented at the 8th International Conference on Philippine Studies held at the Philippine Social Science Center, Quezon City." The bayangpinagpala page was a page by the Pila Historical Society wich Tiongson apparently allowed to reprint his paper. The problem is, my copy of the source (I printed it out because I didn't know about the internet archive at the time) is in deep storage back in the provinces, so I can't verify the assertions line by line... which is unfortunately what we need to do. I should warn you that a number of editors have been taking valid references and using them to say things that aren't actually in the text. I'm not sure this isn't one of those cases. I'll try to unearth the Tiongson ref the next time I go home. Cheers and happy cleaning up. :D - Alternativity (talk) 11:39, 17 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Alternativity, thanks for informing me about this particular Tiongson reference. Please cite the statements with the Tiongson book if you deem it necessary. For now, I have limited non-digital sources (basically only W.H. Scotts' Barangay) and I'm going to buy (or borrow) some Pre-Hispanic source books about the Philippines. For now, I'll rely on that book and on the available sources online. Stricnina (talk) 23:12, 27 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

freaknina, if you know the term Read and understand the context of what they being discuss there, the spread of Hindu-Buddhist faith if as with a references on Books and news papers not Blogs so your doing is sort of yes...you cleaning up but some are under the Pretext of scholar of a popular belief pushing here that they are isolated etc..(which is different from Chinese and Spanish and Indian Sources) in short your friends are selecting the books you will allowed, i monitoring this what so called improvements ps ..i anit making up any stories here it is based on a neutrally schollary / works of academic people. (Theseeker2016 (talk) 01:13, 28 April 2017 (UTC))Reply

Well, you DID make it, I think. But just before the admin closed the previous nomination as "no consensus" because there were too many changes. I've re-proposed it under the new name Tondo (historical polity) as you suggested. On a diffferent matter, I notice you've received at least one attack on your talk page. Next time that happens (hopefully it doesn't), you may want to report it as quickly as possible at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (the shortcut to which is WP:ANI. Such attacks should have no place in wikipedia, dagnabbit. - Alternativity (talk) 04:31, 15 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Also, I feel you deserve this:

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	for your efforts to protect Tondo (historical polity) from those pushing unscholarly Fringe Theories. Alternativity (talk) 04:41, 15 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

To Alternativity: I'm sorry for the very late reply but thank you very much for this barnstar! Is this one of those things that I can put in my main page? Stricnina (talk) 09:48, 24 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Yup. :D That's what it's "for". I collapsed mine into a single section but if you like you can just move this wholesale onto your main page, which is what most people do. - Alternativity (talk) 07:51, 25 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi, do you have a link to the cited source of POTET, Jean-Paul G. (2016). Tagalog Borrowings and Cognates. Lulu.com. p. 334. ISBN 9781326615796 that shows the page that says that certain Tagalog words are of Mandarin origin. The preview pages in Google Books do not show p. 334 and I don't have a copy of this book. The tagalog words listed under chinese loanwords of mandarin origin do not make sense historically and linguistically but make more sense with the cantonese and hokkien pronunciations that can be seen for these characters in wiktionary and are more historically consistent as words used in the past recent centuries in the southern chinese coast trade where the historical chinese traders, migrants and residents in the Philippines from the past centuries were hokkien and cantonese speakers rather than mandarin of northern china. See and compare the pronunciations for these on their wiktionary pages with even the different romanization systems and the specific dialect of the city where most chinese traders and migrants of the Philippines in the past centuries descend from which is for hokkien usually the Quanzhou Jinjiang dialect or sometimes the Zhangzhou dialect and for cantonese, sometimes the Guangdong dialect of canton and macau or sometimes even the taishan dialect next to them: 鴉片, 味精, 金條, 匕首, 舢板, 茶. Check even the individual characters for other extra unmentioned chinese topolects that were not yet added to the other pages. Some rare non-hokkien derived words might even make more sense to have closer pronunciations with Cantonese, Hakka, Teochew, or even rare instances with Shanghainese Wu than Mandarin if one checks the pronunciation in line with the main southern chinese groups that have historically traded with and influenced southeast asian countries of the south seas trade of the past centuries. For opium in the Philippines, the opium trade and consumption in China and Southeast Asia happened in around the 18th-19th century and the main chinese group residing in the philippine colonial cities at that time were Hokkien speakers which opium is pronounced as a-phiàn in hokkien which is closer to apyan rather than mandarin yāpiàn which linguistically speaking would've required some longer length of time period to evolve to apyan if it were really from that. For Betsin, if it came from Vetsin which came from the Tien Chu Ve-Tsin company established in Shanghai and Hongkong in 1923, it most probably even came from Shanghainese Wu since the company was established from Shanghai and the Shanghainese pronunciation in wiktionary for the individual characters is "vi-jin" or "/v̻i²³/-/t͡ɕɪɲ⁵³/" in IPA. For ginto, gold is a very old trading resource and the pre-18th century chinese residents in the Philippines were cantonese and after that are the hokkien migrants. If ginto is really supposedly from 金條, "ginto" would make more sense and sound plenty closer to either hokkien "kim-tiâu" or cantonese "gam1-tiu4/tiu5" rather than a mandarin "jīn-tiáo" which would be a strange linguistic evolution if it did somehow evolve from that. For pisaw, from mandarin "bǐ-shǒu", cantonese "bei6 sau2", hokkien "pí-siú", hakka "pí-sú", the closest one that makes sense would of course be cantonese "bei6 sau2" which is /pei̯²² sɐu̯³⁵/ in IPA. For sampan, 舢板 is pronounced "san-pán" in hokkien and "saan1 baan2" in cantonese or its variant form 三板 is "saam1-baan2" in cantonese and "sam-pán" in hokkien which is mentioned in min-nan wiktionary and mandarin wikipedia. For Tsaa, given how its pronounced in tagalog with the ts- and extra a, and also the historical old pre-18th century cantonese migrants and traders in the country with tea as such an old trade good, it would make more sense from cantonese "caa4" than mandarin "chá" nor hokkien "tê". Also if you took out yasuwi from the chinese list, why not take out yasuwi from the japanese list as per what i said in the talk page. - - Mlgc1998 (talk) 02:11, 27 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello Mlgc1998. I have read your long essay. At first, I was thinking of giving you a picture of the page where Jean-Paul Potet mentioned the Standard Chinese origins (presumably by "Standard Chinese" he meant "Mandarin") of those words. But your reasonable explanation suffices so I'll remove the Mandarin mentions and replace them with Cantonese instead. Stricnina (talk) 19:46, 10 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Now that I think about it, it's better to look for sources that mention the Cantonese contribution to Tagalog. As far as I know, there are none. Instead of adding Cantonese, I won't add it at all and I prefer that section to concentrate on the Hokkien loanwords instead until a source about Cantonese loanwords in Tagalog surfaces. I prefer to minimize speculation, especially in this Wikipedia page, and heavily rely on academic sources. Since there are sources about Hokkien (and actually also from Mandarin according to Jean-Paul Potet) but none talking about Cantonese, I would caution adding Cantonese sections on the Wikipedia page. Mlgc1998, I'm going to wait for citable academic sources. Stricnina (talk) 19:50, 10 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I went to look for more papers that talked about this matter because I remember before some years ago that in my Facebook feed before that there was this post circulating around that some supposed chinese-filipino chinese linguistic researcher made a short little post about his findings with some loanwords like "kuya" and such and he vaguely mentioned that it was primarily hokkien and cantonese that were chinese words that frequently entered tagalog vocabulary. Of course, Facebook or whatever social media being such a vague place to find credible information of sort, I can't remember who that guy was again but I went to look through research papers in library online archives in Ateneo's Rizal Library to find a paper that I can actually access and look through. I found around three papers which one of them is Gloria Chan-Yap's 1977/1980 paper, the other being a paper by the "Linguistic Society of the Philippines and Summer Institute of Linguistics" that used some of Gloria Chan-Yap's aforementioned 1977/1980 paper, and another by Ekaterina Baklanova for Kritika Kultura in Ateneo. Given Jean-Paul Potet is a french researcher with great interest in tagalog and was trying to write a book about all the loanwords and cognates relating to tagalog, he must've studied Gloria Chan-Yap's 1980 papers about Hokkien in Tagalog since a lot of the words he puts in are also the ones in Chan-Yap's paper. For example, I saw that page(p.50) in Google Books for Potet's book where Potet vaguely says that the tagalog word for opium, "apian:ápían:°ápí°an▸apyán", comes from 'Chin. yápiàn 鴉片' and I'm not sure about Potet's level of expertise in chinese but the correct mandarin pinyin of 鴉片 is yāpiàn, not yápiàn. Also Chan-Yap's paper actually discusses the etymology of 'apyan' which she writes as 'apiyan' or 'apyań' and attributes to hokkien, which she writes in p.30 and p.131 with the POJ transcription as 'â+pʰiăn'. I don't know why Potet decided to use 'yápiàn' if he got the right traditional chinese characters but used the mandarin pinyin instead of the hokkien POJ pronunciation provided by Chan-Yap. It is either he had some sort of underlying unmentioned reasoning or he mistakenly simply defaulted to thinking he could simply use the mandarin pinyin as if it is the same as the hokkien POJ pronunciation transcription. Both Mandarin and also even simplified chinese characters are a recently endorsed language and script by the PRC government of present-day China for standard chinese for their populace and also even by the taiwanese and singaporean government these days, except simplified characters in taiwan, where they still use traditional just like Hong kong and Macau. A century ago, only certain government officials and people from northern chinese regions used mandarin.

Also as for Cantonese, it is a bit hard to find a sole dedicated paper simply discussing cantonese linguistic influence in tagalog, they are not very high on the list of major languages that brought loanwords to tagalog and not many are interested or have the expertise to look into them. They are also very few and sparse as a people in our country. Daresay the cantonese people of past centuries in our country are perhaps even the most assimilated or obscure group anymore since the old first cantonese migrants were many centuries past already even before the hokkien migrants and have both assimilated with either the filipino society or with hokkien chinese-filipino communities. (Although perhaps that position may go to the Hakka, which Chan-Yap talks a little about in no.1 of her notes in p.9, but today as if non-existent in society.) The more recent cantonese migrants of (Teochew/Chaochow and Swatao) Eastern Canton/Kwangton, Macau, Taishan, Hong kong are few and sparse though there was a book in google books that studied cantonese families here said that Baguio supposedly once had more cantonese than hokkien, but there are even Hokkien descended people here in our country who migrated from Hongkong after being raised there learning cantonese first. This can be seen in some chinese-filipino families with certain cantonese family names like Chan or Wong even though at home their family speaks Hokkien, albeit maybe somewhat with a cantonese accent. Subjects from this book about Hybrid Tsinoys and my parents also likewise have a history of such. In Gloria Chan-Yap's paper, she mentions in note 11 p.10 that there is a possibility that some word forms may have come from other Chinese languages which came into contact with Tagalog. She attributes certain words like 'tsapsoy' and 'hototay' as coming from cantonese (p.106) but she stops there since she admits in p.122 that she is not familiar with the sound systems of Mandarin, Cantonese, and archaic chinese but only with Hokkien which she herself speaks and roots her investigations from interviews with old hokkien speakers from Amoy(Xiamen) that have immigrated to the philippines long ago, old studies made by others from past decades, and old dictionaries she consulted. It seems from how she wrote her appendix, she must've typewritten the POJ transcriptions and handwrote the traditional chinese characters from the dictionaries she consulted like the Diccionario Chino-Español del dialecto de Amoy, Chiang-chiu, Choan-chiu, Formosa, etc. [1937]. Decades ago before computers, it was pretty hard to find POJ transcriptions of hokkien chinese characters since the chinese dictionaries and schools usually promoted mandarin pinyin that the chinese government endorsed. These days we have more resources now to find and compare all the transcriptions with the tons of dialectical data provided by wiktionary's dedicated chinese users and the online hokkien dictionary provided by the taiwanese government that accepts both chinese and latin letter search queries, and also even an english to hokkien dictionary made by some chinese-filipino blog. Though the online taiwanese dictionaries still don't give the exact real proper traditional characters for the pronounced words but instead endorsed characters just so they match the meaning better to integrate with mainstream mandarin readers.

Anyways, the paper by Gloria Chan-Yap has many more words listed there of supposed hokkien origin like paslang, liempo, bilao, tiyak, etc. that isn't listed on the wiki page and some she leaves a (?) or * because she probably wasn't sure if she got the right characters that would match sensibly and of course, these days we now have more tools readily available to get more sensible words that matched but of course, it will all remain speculation till a dedicated linguist researcher actually uses them and starts interviewing old chinese-filipinos elders like her and pieces together some paper like hers. Also some of the words she uses in her paper, I'm not sure if it will appear in the KWF dictionary but she seems to say that she found these words from the dictionaries she cites in her bibliography. Also, I'm never sure of this and was always wondering, but is the KWF dictionary you are referring to the one by UP in the diksiyonaryo.ph website? They seem to be using terms and shorthands where I don't know where there is some sort of kodigo ba there? Also about those past words, betsin is probably really from that Ve-Tsin company and ginto, it feels kind of doubtful that it is kim-tiau or jin tiao unless I see how the linguistic change somehow through the centuries changed into ginto from that and Chan-Yap's paper does not explicitly mention ginto's etymology but instead a "gintsam" word for goldsmithing was noted in p.143 to be a sort of chisel used to cut bars of gold but the gîn [銀] character in hokkien supposedly means silver which she does note. From this logic of hers, I may speculate at the very least that ginto might be from hokkien gîn-to (銀刀) which for some reason that specific word order does exist to be listed down in wiktionary 刀 's derived term compounds list but no one has yet created the page. I don't know the background of that word but it basically literally means 'silver knife' in the most literal sense but might imply silver cut or metal cut or whatever. It's all speculation for all of these other terms like that tsaa word for tea too until a researcher actually peers into these things and publishes them, which these words do seem like they're hiding interesting backstories which we may or may not ever find conclusive say on the matter. Anyways, this has been quite a block of text which sorry for that, I do quite write very text heavy. If it makes you feel any better, I did this too in the wiktionary talk page of the chinese moderator who seems to might be some canadian sino-linguist student. Also I almost forgot that paper by Ekaterina Baklanova, I'm not sure if you may be able to access that since it seems to be within Ateneo's Rizal Library's website which may not let people without an Ateneo AISIS account in. The paper is titled "TYPES OF BORROWINGS IN TAGALOG/FILIPINO (with Special Remarks on the Ortograpiyang Pambansa, 2013)" and it seems to only have one hokkien derived word referenced in there called "uang"-“beetle, coconut beetle,” which the diksiyonaryo.ph site seems to register as "uwang" and the hokkien term it supposedly derives from lists the term "/oan/ “insect”" with no stated chinese character. I could find the matching one it could be referring to but yeah. Mlgc1998 (talk) 14:02, 11 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Dear Mlgc1998, I am deeply sorry for not responding to you as fast as possible. I was caught up with other tasks. I've not read the entirety of your text, but I want to focus on some things of relevance. In particular, since you have mentioned that the words paslang and tiyak are mentioned in Gloria Chan Yap's paper "Hokkien Chinese Borrowings in Tagalog", you are more than welcome to add them in the list. I have consulted the source itself and I have seen the two words being proposed by the author as Hokkien borrowings. I have no other source that contradicts this affirmation in the best of my knowledge so in the meantime you are allowed to add these two terms. For the other terms that you want to add, please mention the reference AND the page where the relevant statements are located, because if I have a copy, I'd be happy to check the source myself. Also, "ginto" is now considered a Hokkien borrowing and not a Mandarin borrowing in the main Wiki entry. Stricnina (talk) 20:38, 4 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi Stricnina, thank you for your constructive edits to the List of loanwords in Tagalog. I have just a minor issue: please do not mark your edits as minor, unless you make minimal edits as defined here. The definition of "minor" is certainly not rigid, but addition of content (valuable content, in your case) is not minor. –Austronesier (talk) 09:44, 24 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the suggestion, Mr Austronesier. I'll try to not mark the "major" edits as "minor". Stricnina (talk) 12:45, 24 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Still doing it ;) –Austronesier (talk) 18:08, 7 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thanks for your attention to the various Battles of Manila articles. I agree that they are contradictory, and that the references to them are relatively minor mentions in difficult-to-find, out-of-print books. (But I have attempted to preserve the contradictions, since they are in the various texts.)

It took me a long time to find those references because I wanted to make sure all the theories for the possible founding date of Maynila and Tondo were covered, and because of my own inclusionist tendencies which I've described elsewhere. But I agree that they're mostly obscure, and the 1405 one does look downright implausible.

Despite having authored at least one of these articles, I don't think I'd object too much if they were deleted. If the data is put in a merged article and tagged for verification, I might even be able to unearth the articles. They're in photographed pages from books I found in libraries, so it might take some time. (Also, because of my writing style, in some cases people try to simplify the text I write and end up erasing my caveats, thus turning my recognition of legends and theories into seeming assertions of fact... I don't have the time to go through all of the history to check.)

Anyway. Let me generally express support for your cleanup efforts. I hope I'm better today at writing citations, years after writing these articles. I'll try not to leave as much of a referencing mess as I used to.

On an additional note, since I'm so unavailable nowadays (and splitting my attention between this and a totally different historical period), perhaps I can ask you to look into outdated claims of direct Indian presence in the archipelago? (And if they ever try again, of similar claims for the Chinese?) I try to keep up, but those who keep pushing a romanticized image of empires keep twisting the narrative to reflect their preferred worldview, and pushing outdated texts instead of present scholarship. - Alternativity (talk) 16:06, 6 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Dear Alternativity, thanks for the support. Also, I'll try to guard your article named Srivijayan and Madjapahit cultural influences in early Philippine polities. I think it is the best I can do regarding your last request. Stricnina (talk) 19:38, 9 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

For what it's worth, the request to assume good faith was more directed at the person accusing you of bullying than at you. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:24, 6 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Some of my Battles of Manila articles are messed up, I felt hurt at first, that you are proposing the deletion of my works but it in retrospect I admit it's for the greater good. However there are some essential elements that should be retained like how in those particular years, Bruneian, Majapahit and Chinese records show that Manila was part of their empire or paid vassalage. Whether there was a battle to conquer Manila is vague with many authors like Scott and others saying conflicting things, I think we should just make new articles clarifying that it was an "incorporation" of Manila instead of a battle and then just state the view of so and so scholar who said that it's a battle or the opposing view that it was an incorporation through marriage alliance, vassalage, allegiance, tribute payment or whatever the case may be.

--Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 12:24, 7 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi Stricnina (talk), this is Xiang09 (talk).

Contrary to what you have chosen as a "quote" in Aswang Project's article, where you claimed that Aswang Project stated that there is no Bulan deity in Bicolano mythology, please be noted that it was not the author of the article that stated that there was never a Bulan deity in Bicolano myths. It was a certain Erwin S. Cabarles, a mere Facebook user. Additionally, there is a Bulan deity mentioned in Bicolano myths. No less than said Facebook user also mentions this. The Facebook user claimed that Bulan was 'lifted' from a Visayan myth. Aswang Project rebutted the Facebook user in bold, stating that the Facebook user's claim is "highly speculative". Aswang Project notes,

This is highly speculative. I don’t buy that the Bicol Creation Myth was “lifted” from the Visayan. It is more likely that they share a similar creation myth that had not been documented previously.The above theory would be accurate if we were to believe that the Spanish and other documentation was 100% accurate and exhaustive – which we know is untrue. We would also need to believe that myth and folklore does not evolve and change – which we also know is untrue. We would also need to believe that there were no migrant workers or trade in the pre-colonial Philippines who shared stories – which we also know is untrue.

— The Aswang Project Website

Greetings! I don't know if this already has caught your attention, but it will certainly be of interest for you: Commons:Deletion requests/File:3D Image of Tagalog component Languages.png. –Austronesier (talk) 14:22, 24 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Dear Austronesier, thanks for notifying me. I'll participate in the nomination page discussion. Stricnina (talk) 16:40, 24 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi! I think this [1] might be of interest for you. If the admins decide to unblock, let AGF pervail and stay cool, but we should take extra care that standards are upheld. –Austronesier (talk) 09:01, 3 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Dear Austronesier, thanks for bringing me up to speed. I'll try to chime in on the discussion as the event unfolds itself. Let's hope he really reformed himself and I hope I'll not return to that dreaded period of time during which I have to explain and re-explain what constitutes original research and what constitutes a reliable source. Stricnina (talk) 17:22, 3 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

I appreciate your vigorous efforts to revert the promiscuous additions of Anitism-related content to so many articles. I went through the oldest postings of HKong and did same. Most of that was insertion of images rather than large blocks of text. David notMD (talk) 11:29, 18 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello Madame Stricnina I would like to propose that a new article about the "Kedatuan of Dapitan" be created or the old oone be restored with new content added, since the discussion about its' deletion show that there are multiple valid sources about it, not included in the original deleted article.

Discussion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kedatuan_of_Dapitan

In addition I found out that there were ancient Chinese sources specifically mentioning the state of Dapitan here: http://tulay.ph/2018/02/06/sayao-and-dapitan/ and ironically they found out about the state of Dapitan they researched in Ming sources because of the Wikipedia article you guys deleted. In line with the discussions about the article and recent discoveries, I respectfully request that you guys either restore the Kedatuan of Dapitan article with the new references added in or create a new article including the newly supplied references. Thank you and God Bless.--Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 13:15, 21 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr.:, please don't call me "Madame" and please stop calling it "kedatuan". As far as I know, only you are calling it "kedatuan". You yourself have yet to show a reliable source. I am going to write a stub about the so-called Dapitan kingdom with the few sources that I have (in fact, only two sources so far, not "multiple"). In the meantime, please read the rules about no original research properly and look for articles from JSTOR and Google Scholar to support whatever next article or contribution you wish to make regarding pre-colonial Philippines. Right now you are yet to properly prove you actually understood the rules. Stricnina (talk) 13:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Ok I won't call you by that title anymore. Its' ok if we just call it simply as a state or generic polity. Thank you for directing me to that Wikipedia Policy article. I also think it useful to link the deadlinks that used to refer to that defunct Dapitan article to your new one, have a blessed night.--Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 13:47, 21 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello, how goes the progress on the Dapitan article? I think that we have alot of free time these days due to community quarantine so its best that we use that to improve Wikipedia.-Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 07:14, 24 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi Stricnina, your input here will be highly appriciated, as always! –Austronesier (talk) 13:34, 21 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Austronesier:, thanks! I have added my input. I also noticed details relative to the Bruneian invasion present in the Philippines article. I don't know whether the sources cited there properly support many of the claims there, such as Sultan Bolkiah defeating Rajah Gambang or marrying a certain Laila Mecana of Sulu or about Sultan Bolkiah himself being a half-Visayan. You can check if you are interested. Stricnina (talk) 13:59, 21 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

About that, there is an article floating in the internet where Sultan Bolkiah made a speech proudly saying he waws half Visayan. It's in Tagalog though. http://www.oocities.org/thetropics/coast/7446/Ragam.htm, meanwhile the Rajah Gambang part was mentioned in thhe Tondo article and the Sulu Sultanate's Tarsiallas explicity mentioned that Leila Macana married Sultan Bolkiah. --Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 14:23, 21 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr.:, can you tell me why that site (and its content) is reliable? Stricnina (talk) 14:29, 21 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

I read previously from a Bruneian website an English translation of that, but that was years ago, this is the only one I can find related to that. I agree, that without original attribution, that statement is very doubtful, especially coming from an archived website.--Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 14:39, 21 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Stricnina! I want to know, do Filipino people use East Asian style of personal seal in the past like East Asian people (Chinese, Japanese, Korean) do nowadays? I have read that from this article Seal_(East_Asia)#Filipino_usage, it seem out of topic from what supposedly that article want to discuss about it. Thanks! -Ibrahim Muizzuddin (talk) 02:12, 14 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

I feel as if the said person deleted too much of the history section of the Philippines especially the Islamic era, even though I agree with him that the article is excessively detailed, I also feel that the said deleted portions were crucial and necessary, can you chime in on this? Thanks!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Philippines#PH_0447's_deletions_of_many_Islamic_era_history_paragraphs

Hello, I noticed you begun AfD's for a couple of "Battle of Manila"'s last year. I have been looking through other Battle of Manilas, and have particular concerns over Battle of Manila (1570), Battle of Manila (1574), and Battle of Manila (1896). In all of the sources of these article I can access, I cannot find a reference to a "Battle of Manila". (The 1574 article seems particularly bleak.) I also haven't found anything through some brief googling, aside from Wikipedia mirrors. I was wondering if you have insights into these, since you didn't nominate them with the others. Thanks, CMD (talk) 15:20, 20 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Chipmunkdavis: I'm sorry but I haven't checked the other battles of Manila. I stopped mainly for personal life-related reasons. I might check them someday but I prefer to not promise anything. Stricnina (talk) 20:20, 21 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

No problem, mostly asking in case there was a reason you didn't nominate them with the others. Lots of cleanup to do on Philippine history articles at the moment, so when you come back I'm sure there will be something to do. Enjoy your wikibreak, CMD (talk) 01:38, 22 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Stricnina: Hey, I saw you mension Potet before. I wondered if you have access to Baybayin, the Syllabic Alphabet of the Tagalogs? I was able to see a few snaps of the book and it seems good and helpful for the Wiki article, but I can't find a free source anywhere. Did you find any? Glennznl (talk) 19:41, 21 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Showing you this because you have extensive experience with this banned user:

Link

Do you think this is them again? Crossroads ^-talk- 14:42, 24 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Crossroads: Uuuuugghhhhhh..... not again! I'm supposed to be on Wikibreak. These kind of users are the reason why I'm starting to hate Wikipedia. Should we open an investigation? Stricnina (talk) 14:50, 24 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

I know, it's frustrating! I say we wait a bit and see if ST47 will handle it. If not, then an SPI can be opened. But feel free to testify to ST47. Crossroads ^-talk- 14:55, 24 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Crossroads: FWIW, I have also noticed them and their numerous page creations a few hours ago, but I didn't want to bother our friend because I knew that would ruin their Wikibreak... Diffs, we need diffs, folks! –Austronesier (talk) 15:03, 24 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

I gave three diffs at ST47's talk page. We can give more if needed, but I also hate how good-faith users may spend tons of time gathering diffs to justify CheckUser when CheckUser itself provides an answer. Sockpuppets are such time wasters. I went to ST47 because they have experience with the sockmaster. I only commented here because I saw Stricnina edit somewhere else and thought I'd drop by. Crossroads ^-talk- 15:10, 24 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Crossroads: I want to thank you again for dealing with it. I also want to thank you for doing this last time. I still remember that month and it made me actually give up because it was clear to me that I was dealing again with the same sockpuppet yet every time that I have to open an SPI I have to collect diffs again and again and I was already tired of collecting evidences at that point. I was actually entertaining the idea of just letting the person behind the sockpuppet to just do whatever they want. I was about to quit because it turned into a lonely and frustrating whack-a-mole game with the same sockpuppet master. I actually felt relieved when you made this post. So, thank you very much!

Now that it's done, is there a way to automatically merge the several deities created by that last sockpuppet account to its relevant pages? For example, merging Kabunian, Malaon and Makapatag, Bulan (religion) (why the religion as disambiguation? I don't even think Bulan is a "religion"), Mangetchay, Mebuyan, Walain Katolosan, Sidapa, Haliya (deity), Incantus, Oryol (religion), Gugurang, Lakapati, Siyak (Haik), Kadaw La Sambad and Bulon La Mogoaw, Malayari, Apûng Malyari, Dangga (Agitot), Matan-ayon, Magindara, Urang Kaya Hadjiyula, Sondayo etc. into Deities of Philippine Mythology? I don't think each and everyone of these deities deserve a Wikipedia page of their own as per WP:Notability, etc. Stricnina (talk) 16:09, 24 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

There are other editors highly frustrated with sockpuppetry just like you. Would it be okay if I post about this at the Village Pump? Even though I lack the technical capability to suggest specifics, I may propose something related to pre-emptively preventing banned users from registering accounts, or flagging accounts registered from certain IPs or user agents. Editor retention is a big problem, so you stating that you wanted to give up and let their OR run wild will get attention.

As for the articles created by the sock, I say we don't let any of their content stand, since socking doesn't pay and they are not trustworthy, and that we tag their new articles as WP:G5. I didn't go and do that just yet, since you made another suggestion. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:14, 24 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Crossroads: I have no idea what the Village Pump is but feel free to post about this there. I hope something good comes out of it. About the freshly-made Wikipedia articles, WP:G5 seems to be a more appealing idea at the moment. So if you start tagging those articles, I wouldn't mind, if also because I am still trying to understand how to do the merging and I don't know if I have the patience to understand the process or not. Stricnina (talk) 17:26, 24 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

I agree with Crossroads that WP:G5 is the most straightforward solution. Abusive editing shouldn't pay. As for pre-emptive measures, AFAIK, there is e.g. the possibilty of IP range-blocks, especially in cases of WP:LTA. Maybe you can ask ST47 about it how to initiate measures for the sockmaster Xiang09. Disruptive editing by socks is highly frustrating. We e.g. regularly have a sockmaster returning to Urdu-related topics, which are already prone to dispute, so discussion tends to disintegrate into chaos because of the some participants in the dispute take the bait and react to the sock's antics, instead of denying them recognition and quickly bring them to SPI. –Austronesier (talk) 17:52, 24 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Kumusta kaibigan, I hope you are keeping emotionally and physically well during covid. Good luck with your exams.

I came across you few weeks ago on articles related to loanwords in tagalog and Indianised polity related articles. Subsequently, I have not been able to devote time to edit those, but have bene coimpling the research material int he background.

Reason I came here is to invite you to please subscribe to Talk:Thitu_Island#Chinese/Taiwanese_POV_pushing article. I do not know any other piunoy editor kasi. I have just tried to clean up this article on pinoy spartly island full of China/Taiwanese POV pushing. Please invite few more filipino editors to watch the article and further enhance it, I have only done a quick clean up lang. These are the changes I made, there is ample scope for further improvements. Thanks. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 19:08, 31 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hoy, you can't do this[2] to us! :) –Austronesier (talk) 21:06, 23 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Austronesier: Sorry for the late reply, I appreciate your message in my talk page. I'll come back and contribute with more dedication when my Wikipedia fatigue is over. Again, thanks for stopping by. Stricnina (talk) 22:42, 1 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of loanwords in Tagalog, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Breeding.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:18, 2 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

 Template:Spanish-language writers of the Philippines has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Nigej (talk) 09:20, 14 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply