User talk:Ray Loyzaga

January 2016

\If you have a source for the other children then add it to the article when you add the names, other wise leave them out. I don't have access to the book so I'm not going to do it for you. And don't create red-linked wikiarticles for non-notable people who are never going to have articles. Meters (talk) 00:30, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

You don't need to read the book, the news article about the book mentions their names.

"Loyzaga, 82, recently arrived from Australia where he lived with wife Vicky close to his son Joey and daughters Princess and Teresa since 1987. He is now on the road to recovery under daughter Bing’s care. Son Chito arranged for Loyzaga’s return to Manila and was the prime mover in publishing the book “The Big Difference.”

Count them ... close to ... "daughters Princess and Teresa" .... "recovery under daughter Bing’s care"

Care to undo your misinformed changes, or should I inform Princess at the funeral on Monday that she doesn't exist because someone who doesn't know the family keeps deleting her? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ray Loyzaga (talk • contribs) 00:44, January 28, 2016‎ Meters (talk) 01:15, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

There's no source on the line you keep adding about his 5 children. Per WP:BRD you must discuss this on the article's talk page rather than reverting. It's not up to me to read all of the other refs in the article to see if one of them happens to support what you have written. I see there is a source on another paragraph that does list 4 children, but it does not say 5, so even that source is not sufficient for your claim. Your continued reverts are disruptive, your edit summaries are person attacks, and as already pointed out, there's no point in attempting to link non-notable people without articles. Since you don't seem to be interested in a polite discussion of this, I'll template you instead.

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Carlos Loyzaga. 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. Meters (talk) 01:15, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Carlos Loyzaga. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Meters (talk) 01:15, 28 January 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) 01:34, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Since you are repairing incorrect apostrophes perhaps you should attend to "the couples children" since it should read "the couple's children". Ray Loyzaga (talk) 02:21, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

What are you talking about? A. You're replying to a message left by a automated bot, and B. if you meant to reply to me, then I already fixed the minor "couples → "couple's" apostrophe typo in the article. I don't see any others. It there's another typo you see why don't you fix it yourself? Meters (talk) 03:00, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I sent you that correction prior to you fixing it. I'm rather wary of making changes because they keep getting deleted, nor do I want to imply approval of your changes. Ray Loyzaga (talk) 03:15, 28 January 2016 (UTC) By the way, idiomatic English would mean that "included" should be "include", on that same line.Ray Loyzaga (talk) 03:32, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

And if you had replied to my thread rather than dumping it at the bottom of the page I maight have actually seen it before I fixed it. As it was I fixed the apostrophe and later noticed a message from you that seemed to be referencing that edit. There might be less confusion if you were a bit clearer about what you are talking about. I'm not a mind reader so I don't know what edit or edits you are referring to unless you use a diff. See WP:D&L if you don't know how to use diffs.

I have absolutely no idea where this mysterious "included" you're so concerned with is, so I don't know if what my typo or someone else's. I don't care, and it doesn't matter. If it's in an article then by all means fix it yourself. This is probably the the fourth time I've suggested that you do things yourself. I really don't care whether you approve of my edits not. I added a ref to show two sister's names and restored those sisters to the line in question. I reworded the sentence to allow for the possibility of additional children (since it seems there is indeeed a third). You've found a source that shows there is a third sister and I've already suggested that you add it. As long as your edits are reliably sourced no-one should object. I've wasted enough time on this. Please keep it off my talk page.Meters (talk) 03:57, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Your edits aren't reliably sourced, you are misreading the citations as listing all the children rather than just the notable ones. You seem incapable of accepting that you are wrong.

As for the apparently mysterious "included" try using your own reference on how to look at differences, given that you had only edited one line on the article and added "Loyzaga was married to Vicky Cuerva;[when?] the couple's children included" I thought it may have been enough of a clue. Idiomatic English would state this as: "the couple's children include". The "references" you cite[8,9] were written well after the original claim of 4 children statement appeared in Wikipedia and are a circular reference to the misinformation that was contained here.

Ray Loyzaga (talk) 04:52, 28 January 2016 (UTC) "NEVER insert a "Citation needed" tag (or, worse, a whole battery of them) to make an extraneous point, to "pay back" another editor for inappropriate behaviour of any kind, or because you generally "don't like" a subject, a particular article, or another editor. Gross examples of this sort of thing are, frankly, vandalism, but otherwise thoughtful and well-behaved editors may at times be guilty of this one unconsciously." Please remove the citation needed tag, you know he has 5 children, there is no need for an explicit citation, you clearly added it as payback.

Congratulations! You found a one-letter typo I made, and better yet, I missed it again when I looked for it! You must be so excited. Thanks for pointing it out to me. Next time just fix it. It's not correct to say that I added that line, since much of it was already it the article. I simply modified it. I also did not add cite 9. That was done by someone else.

My edits are properly sourced. I made a compromise edit to allow for the possibility of more than the 4 named children, which is all the cited sources list. We list the 4 children mentioned in the cited sources. We can only use what the sources give us, not what editor's claim to know. If the sources don't mention the existence of a fifth (or however many) child we can't mention said child (or children). If the sources mention a fifth child but not the name then we can only mention the number, not the name. Since you have additional sources, please add them and be done with this. If you don't want to bother, then don't.

Since you claim she has avoided the limelight and is apparently not individually notable, there's an argument to be made for not mentioning her by name in the article at all, even if there are refs that verify her name. It sounds like she wants her privacy and the article does not need her name, so I am not going to add her name to the article myself. If you want to, source it and go ahead. Meters (talk) 05:27, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

The cn is not payback. It's simply a formal request for a source to be added to the article to verify a fact. I've asked you repeatedly to add the sources you have found.

Since you said that you didn't add the name the last time I clearly wan't trying to get back at you. Please remove your accusation of bad faith editing as it appears to be yet another personal attack by you. Meters (talk) 05:33, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

When you added that cn you already acknowledged "since it seems there is indeeed a third", you already knew the reference to the names of all the children published under "Philippine Sports Greats, pp 220" you rejected this because it was a "blog", you already knew that the google books scan which you can search for showed the book included exactly what the blog stated. None of the citations that existed before yesterday stated that they were enumerating all the children, they just mentiooned 4 notable ones. And the cn notes state, "If a statement sounds plausible, and is consistent with other statements in the article, but you have honest doubts that it is totally accurate, then consider making a reasonable effort to find a reference yourself. In the process you may end up confirming that the statement is too doubtful to remain." I provided that information for you. You had no plausible reason to doubt me, yet you persisted despite having no direct knowledge of the subject. Hiding behind needing an explicit reference to allow my edit to stand is nothing but pure harassment. How do I reference a book that is on my table? That I am looking at right now? "Carlos Loyzaga The Big Difference, compiled and edited by Lito Cinco, Albert Almendraledjo, Bing Loyzaga-Gibbs and Chito Loyzaga.Copyright 2013 San Beda College Alumni Association, ISBN 978-971-23-6444-0, ref page 115

also ref pages 120-121 (Princess' dear dad letter is published there". You can't see it.Ray Loyzaga (talk) 06:09, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Your edit? You said the last one was your wife's edit. That's the one I put the cn on.

My edit was to add info to this talk, I seem to have nuked your edits, sorry, I had no intention of doing that. I did have an "event" where I lost my post describing the way to do a search on google books, I was cutting and pasting between pages. I likely selected text in your post without noticing and nuked it.Rloyzaga (talk) 08:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

From the sources you have provided I agree that there is a fifth child. The main reason for the cn is for the name of the fifth child since I don't think you have provided a ref that gives her name. And you still need to add a source for the existence of the fifth child, particularly since we already have one of more refs that only list 4. That's why I mentioned the number in the cn.

And what is your plausible belief that I have the name wrong so as to put in a cn? Particularly since up to this point I have been right and certainly more correct than the existing entry?Rloyzaga (talk) 08:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Sources do not have to be online. The cite template has a "book" option. Just fill it in. Meters (talk) 06:39, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

January 2016

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or change other editors' legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Carlos Loyzaga. Meters (talk) 05:38, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I: have made no explicit effort to remove his comments. I think you will find it has something to do with editing overlaps. I.e. I edited while he added more text. Why would I remove what he wrote? I am responding to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ray Loyzaga (talk • contribs) 05:57, January 28, 2016‎

Your edit here removed six edits by two editors. The first of those edits were made more 30 minutes before your edit, and the last of them was made 17 minutes before your edit. Meters (talk) 06:52, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea how I managed that, I must have accidentally selected text that was scrolled off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rloyzaga (talk • contribs) 08:43, 28 January 2016 (UTC)