Aniseseed

Your submission at Articles for creation: Karin Duseva (March 23)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.
Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Karin Duseva.
• To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the .

Thank you for your
contributions to Wikipedia!

• Please remember to link to the submission!

• You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

SarahStierch (talk) 00:22, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello! Aniseseed, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there!

Your submission at Articles for creation: Karin Duseva (September 13)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Here's why:

The subject does not appear to meet the standards for an article on an individual, as all her roles up to this time are quite minor. Please do not submit the article again, until there is much more extensive documentation for a more substantial career.

• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

DGG ( talk ) 21:22, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit of Ferdinand Marcos

I would suggest that you read up before posting openly fraudelent statements HOW COME I HAVE SOURCES FROM THE WORLD BANK, TRANSPARENCY INTERNATIONAL, AND THE UNITED NATIONS, THAT MAKE YOU LOOK LIKE AN UNEDUCATED SPAMMER?

such as "South Korea was a bastion of democracy from 1965 to 1969", and refrain from editing documents and adding in such statements to suit your own political agenda in the future. What Wikipedia needs is truth, not propaganda. I HAVE SOURCES AND HISTORIOGRAPHY FROM THE WORLD BANK, UNITED NATIONS, AND TRANSPARENCY INTERNATIONAL, WHAT DO YOU HAVE? LOL

I instruct you Yny501, NOT suggest, to read the entire article. Show me where "South Korea was a bastion of democracy from 1965 to 1969", and I'll show you where you are wrong. Wikipedia is for thinking people, not whiners who have no basis for their statements.

Yny501 (talk) 08:50, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

• 1. Good job not signing your post. 2. Good job not commenting on the thread, but editing my statement. 3. If you do not know what your edits are, I suggest you refrain from editing at all. 4. What exactly do you mean by "Show me where 'South Korea was a bastion of democracy from 1965 to 1969'?

GOOD JOB FOR OPINING LIKE THE UNEDUCATED SPAMMER THAT YOU ARE... I KNOW YOU'RE UNEDUCATED, SO WHY DON'T YOU JUST POST ON SOMEONE WHO'S UNEDUCATED LIKE YOU Yny501?

If you mean how one would ever think South Korea was a bastion of democracy, well that's my point exactly. If you mean where you wrote it, then what do you mean by showing me where 'I am wrong' [sic]? Are you trying to tell me that Park Chung-hee was a democratically elected president? Do you even know anything about the world's history? 

THANKS FOR PROVING YOU DO NOT KNOW HOW TO PARSE, Yny501..... I'M REALLY SORRY YOU NEVER WENT TO COLLEGE, OR PERHAPS YOU DID BUT IT SHOWS YOU DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT METHODOLOGY.

5. 'thinking people' [sic] means thinkers, and if you need basis for my statements, you can refer to my edit summaries. I don't see how telling others about political whitewashing is whining. YOUR EDIT SUMMARIES? DO YOU MEAN THE UNDOCUMENTED NON-SOURCED STATEMENT THAT COMES FROM YOUR ENDLESS WHINING OF ADJECTIVES AND ADVERBS? WHERE ARE YOUR SOURCES?

Maybe you think that George Rockwell (leader of the American Nazi Party for your information, since you don't seem to know world history) defended Hitler's legacy well. THANKS FOR PROVING YOU DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT FALLACIES OF FALSE ASSOCIATION. I'M SORRY YOU DID NOT PICK THAT IN COLLEGE, ASSUMING YOU WENT TO COLLEGE.

But what you did on Ferdinand Marcos's page is essentially sum up Hitler's legacy as "he banned smoking in Germany". SO HOW COME I HAVE SOURCES AND HISTORIOGRAPHY FROM THE WORLD BANK, UNITED NATIONS, AND TRANSPARENCY INTERNATIONAL, AND ALL YOU HAVE ARE NO SOURCES, ADJECTIVES AND ADVERBS, AND FALLACIES? Lol

It's not wrong, but it's a politically motivated statement, and is far from a full picture of his legacy. WHO ARE YOU TO TELL ME ABOUT LEGACY WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE SOURCES, AND YOU CAN'T SUBSTANTIATE YOUR STATEMENTS WITH CITATIONS? lol

You covered up all of Marcos's corruption on his Wikipedia page, and even defended Imelda Marcos's shoe collection (the rationale of having 3000 pairs of shoes being something like "she collected 11 pairs a day, which isn't a lot"), which is ludicrous - just to start, who needs 11 pairs of shoes a day?

YOU JUST DON'T WANT TO ADMIT THAT WHAT I WROTE WAS CORRECT. AND I DID NOT SAY 11 SHOES A DAY, IT WAS 11 SHOES A MONTH.... IT'S SOMETHING YOU CAN'T UNDERSTAND BECAUSE YOU ARE UNEDUCATED AND ARMED WITH FALLACIES.

I won't debate further on this - I am sure other editors can see what's right and what's wrong.

YOU CAN'T DEBATE. ALL YOU HAVE ARE FALLACIES AND EMOTING WITH ADJECTIVES AND ADVERBS.

If you want to debate Marcos's legacy with me, go ahead and start proving your own points as opposed to attacking mine for supposedly having no basis. 

LET'S BEGIN WITH THE DEBATE. WHERE ARE YOUR SOURCES AND DOCUMENTS? YOU BETTER NOT USE FALLACIES WITH ME. YOU ALREADY PROVED ALL YOU HAVE ARE FALLACIES.

Wikipedia allows for multiple political opinions - which is perfectly normal - but you do have to back up your points with concrete evidence. ONCE AGAIN, FOR YOUR IGNORANT STATEMENT WITH ENDLESS EMOTING OF ADJECTIVES AND ADVERBS, I HAVE SOURCES AND HISTORIOGRAPHY FROM THE WORLD BANK, UNITED NATIONS, AND TRANSPARENCY INTERNATIONAL.... WHERE ARE YOUR SOURCES? LMAO!

If you do wish to debate this point, I would hope that you give me the respect of listing out your opinions coherently and with basis, so that we can have an educated and respectful discussion. Yny501 (talk) 08:52, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

YOU DON'T DESERVE RESPECT BECAUSE ALL YOU HAVE ARE FALLACIES, NO DOCUMENTS OR SOURCES, AND AN ENDLESS EMOTING OF ADJECTIVES AND ADVERBS..... YOUR EMOTIONS WILL NOT GET YOU ANYWHERE......SO STOP WHINING AND GIVE ME ACADEMICALLY SUBSTANTIATED SOURCES.... WHINER!

To Object404 LEARN TO UNDERSTAND SOURCES BEFORE YOU POST YOUR LIES ON WIKIPEDIA

"Report of an Amnesty International Mission to the Republic of the Philippines 22 November - 5 December 1975" https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/204000/asa350191977en.pdf

Please read it page by page. Please. Thank you. -Object404 (talk) 05:05, 27 February 2016 (UTC) I DID READ IT PAGE BY PAGE, THAT'S WHY I HAVE THE HISTORIOGRAPHY OF TRANSPARENCY INTERNATIONAL AND YOU DON'T.

That's Transparency International you're citing, not Amnesty International. Read the above report. -Object404 (talk) 05:35, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

THAT'S PRECISELY MY POINT, Object404.... YOU SHOULD READ THE Amnesty International report TOO... YOU HAVE ALL THE NAMES OF THE PEOPLE WHO COMMITTED THE MILITARY ATROCITIES, AND YOU JUST MAKE IT SIMPLE JUST BY SAYING IT'S ALL MARCOS. HOW COME YOU DON'T WRITE IT ABOUT ENRILE, RAMOS, AND THE OTHER GENERALS? HOW COME YOU DON'T CITE EACH AND EVERY PERSON WHO COMMITTED THE ABUSES, AND JUST SAY "IT'S MARCOS!"

WHY? BECAUSE IT'S EASIER FOR A LAZY PERSON LIKE YOU TO JUST BLAME MARCOS THAN TO ACTUALLY PUBLISH THE ENTIRE MILITARY ATROCITIES ONE BY ONE.

In the 2004 Global Transparency Report, Marcos appeared in the list of the World's Most Corrupt Leaders, listed in second place behind Suharto, the former President of Indonesia. However, academic scrutiny of the sources and historiography of the Global Transparency Report shows that Transparency International sources the information from the Sunday Mail, a newspaper published in Australia, and does not cite any court-resolved document from any Philippine or international court.. The same 2004 Global Transparency Report mentions the name "Marcos" at least eight times, but cites CNN and Time Asia as the sources of Transparency International's information, further supporting the trial by publicity technique of accusing Marcos without any legal or legitimate documents.. Another source cited in the 2004 Global Transparency Report mentions the United Nation's Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) and the Anti-Corruption Toolkit. Further academic scrutiny of the sources used by the UN revealed that the one and only source about Marcos came from a footnote stating a "1989 RICO claim brought in California" that was never resolved in court.

Please read the Wikipedia page on what are officially considered by Wikipedia as Reliable Sources. The sources you listed above are considered reliable published resources under Wikipedia rules. Court and legal documents are not the be-all and end-all of reputable, reliable resources -Object404 (talk) 18:44, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Please stop removing sections with cited reputable sources.... To Object404 STOP DOING THE SAME THING

-Object404 (talk) 05:34, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

So we have an agreement then to not remove content with cited reputable resources?

REPUTABLE SOURCES ARE NOT TO BE MISINTERPRETED OR MISCONSTRUED. IF YOUR SO-CALLED RELIABLE SOURCES ARE REALLY "RELIABLE" MAKE SURE YOU KNOW HISTORIOGRAPHY AND LEARN WHERE THE ORIGINAL SOURCES ARE COMING FROM. SOURCES ARE NOT BIBLICAL DOCTRINE, SO LEARN TO KNOW IF THEY ARE RELIABLE OR NOT AND KNOW THE ORIGINAL CONTEXT, NOT JUST INTERPRET COMING FROM YOUR PERSONAL BIASES.

Also, please keep all conversations civil and refrain from personal attacks (such as namecalling) with people you are having a conversation with. YOU ARE ALL GANGING UP ON ME. HOW MANY SO-CALLED "EDITORS" TOOK DOWN MY POSTS WITHOUT VERIFYING HISTORIOGRAPHY?

You are violating one of Wikipedia's rules or Five pillars which is Wikipedia:Civility. Also, please refrain from Wikipedia:Edit warring. As you are a new editor to Wikipedia, please read these links and familiarize yourself with them. Thank you for digging up interesting information about the subject. -Object404 (talk) 18:56, 27 February 2016 (UTC) I KNOW MY RESPONSIBILITIES AS AN EDITOR IF THE OTHER SO-CALLED "EDITORS" LEARN PROPER METHODOLOGY AND HISTORIOGRAPHY.

Hey dude, take a chill pill. There's no need for blatant attacks against others who have done nothign to you. There is no conspiracy against you - just relax. Just to let you know - if you type in all caps it doesn't make anyone sympathetic towards your point. Also, if you have things to say, don't edit over others' edits - list out your points one by one in a comment or a separate section. Finally, what's the deal with you saying others can't analyze? Just because we get different conclusions (which, by the way, are right just as yours are wrong) doesn't mean that we don't have functioning brain cells. At the very least, my mental condition doesn't make me put everything in caps and look like I can't talk at a volume of under 120 decibels. Please - is this how you talk to people in real life? No wonder you have no life and spend your entire existence whitewashing Marcos's legacy. You are a pathetic and sad primitive life form. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yny501 (talk • contribs) 08:46, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

---

I would like to retract the second half of what I said - those ad hominem attacks were uncalled for. However, in a roundabout way, at least I proved that I can insult you if I want to - I just merely don't find it necessary most of the time. Yny501 (talk)

IF YOU THINK YOUR ADJECTIVES, ADVERBS, AND ENDLESS EMOTING COMING FROM A NON-EDUCATED, AND NON-ACADEMICALLY TRAINED, OPINIONATED BLAH BLAHS MAKE YOU CORRECT, YOU ARE 100% WRONG. YOU ARE STILL HAVE ADJECTIVES, ADVERBS, AND ENDLESS EMOTING COMING FROM A NON-EDUCATED, AND NON-ACADEMICALLY TRAINED PERSON.

MOST IMPORTANTLY, YOU GUYS GANGED UP ON ME TRYING TO BULLY ONE, AND THAT'S ONE PERSON SO I'LL FOLLOW YOUR POSTS..... I WILL NOT BACK DOWN JUST BECAUSE YOU BULLIES ARE ALL PART OF THE TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY!'

• Look who's the whiner now? Yny501 (talk) 00:50, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 18:26, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

February 2016

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:50, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:51, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

BracketBot Notice of potential markup breaking

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ferdinand Marcos may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:29, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 18:37, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Please discuss major edits at Talk:Ferdinand Marcos and do not simply revert edits that you disagree with. You need to work on establishing a consensus or several of you will be facing blocks for edit-warring. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:56, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

March 2016

Your recent editing history at Ferdinand Marcos shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:56, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ferdinand Marcos may have broken the syntax by modifying 4 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:05, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Aniseseed reported by User:JJMC89 (Result: ). Thank you. — JJMC89 (T·C) 07:16, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

March 2016

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Ferdinand Marcos. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Katie^talk 16:20, 2 March 2016 (UTC)