User talk:Truth222

Estrada was impeached by the House of Representatives. [1] The definition of impeachment doesn't mean it removed him from office. TheCoffee (talk) 05:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no fake page. The article you are looking for is at Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. Please be aware that page titles are case-sensitive; if you misspell or use the wrong capitalization or skip the dash, you will not get the right page. Thatcher 00:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Three-revert rule

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

Compare: There are not Three-reverts! (cur) (last) 23:16, 26 March 2008 Sandstig (Talk | contribs) m (52,962 bytes) (→Economy: Fixed references, removed biased citation from PIA) (cur) (last) 23:12, 26 March 2008 Sandstig (Talk | contribs) (52,962 bytes) (Nope, read through Wikipedia:Vandalism, at most this is a content dispute.) (cur) (last) 22:24, 26 March 2008 Truth222 (Talk | contribs) (53,129 bytes) (Undid revision 201165652 by Sandstig (talk). If you cannot find the citations give time to explain. If not its vandadlism) (cur) (last) 22:13, 26 March 2008 Sandstig (Talk | contribs) m (51,998 bytes) (Reverted to revision 200853845 by DumZiBoT; Insufficient citations + misplaced paragraphs. (TW)) (cur) (last) 22:05, 26 March 2008 Truth222 (Talk | contribs) (53,129 bytes) (→Economy: poverty, macroeconomic instability and corruption, World Bank) (cur) (last) 21:54, 26 March 2008 Truth222 (Talk | contribs) (52,485 bytes) (→Succession: Edsa II a mistake, says Catholic Church leader)Truth222 (talk) 23:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Fake page to prevent users with different opinion from editing

I checked the request for arbitration you filed, and just thought I'd clarify that I'm not an admin. With regard to the fake page you mentioned, could it be a caching issue? If you hit CTRL+F5 you'll probably get the newer version. --Edward Sandstig (talk) 07:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who wrote this and used also your name? "[edit] "Her Excellency"

Ashoroman (talk) 08:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)The term "Her Excellency" is used when addressing a high ranking official from a foreign country directly, either orally or in writing. In an encyclopedic article, it sounds only deferential and sycophantic, if not outright ridiculous. It should be deleted.Ashoroman (talk) 08:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Paragraph about Lagdameo's disappointment in Arroyo in "Succession" section

I removed the paragraph because it isn't appropriate to the section. The section deals with Arroyo taking over the presidency and it being declared legal by the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court later declares that the take-over was illegal, then fine, we can ammend that section with that information. A religous leader giving their opinion and expressing disappointment over the aftermath of EDSA II, however, just isn't relevant to issues of succession. Even former presidents such as Aquino and Ramos expressing disappointment wouldn't be relevant to the section since they do not affect whether or not the decision was ruled legal. --Edward Sandstig (talk) 08:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

If you are consequent you must delete almost the whole paragraph. The "people power" also is irrelevant for the court and was not possible without the deceived support of the church leaders. Further: Read the decision of the court, it sounds partly like yellow press and would never be adequat to international standards.Truth222 (talk) 09:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC) First, the term "people power" isn't used in the paragraph, second, the first paragraph has everything to do with how she came to power. I won't be reverting for now, since we've already both violated the 3-revert-rule. --Edward Sandstig (talk) 10:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)"

There exists in a similar way a different page for the main article Truth222 (talk) 00:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The content you pasted is what I see in the "fake" talk page you're referring to. --Edward Sandstig (talk) 01:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EDSA III

Saying that Arroyo gave an order to shoot protesters is blatantly incorrect. It violates the policy on biographies of living persons, and is probably libelous too. Please do not add such inaccuracies to Wikipedia, or further actions will have to be taken. TheCoffee (talk) 08:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You say that the killing of some people happened without order or against an order of Arroyo?Truth222 (talk) 00:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can't just make up stuff like that. This reference says four people died, including two policemen. The protesters were rioting, people get hurt. TheCoffee (talk) 07:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"This reference] says four people died, including two policemen."

Nowhere is written incl. 2 policeman. The Daily Tribune later reported 11 dead, nothing from police. Friends told me there were dozens of killed protesters.Truth222 (talk) 12:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arroyo

Surely you've been on Wikipedia long enough to understand the problems with the text you're trying to add to Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. Please stop it, or modify your text to reflect a neutral encyclopedic point of view. See Wikipedia:NPOV#Impartial_tone. TheCoffee (talk) 16:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Coffee. Your text in same manner is not in accordance to the neutral encyclopedic point of view. Its an old text biased for Arroyo as most of your edits. The point of the bishops I explained (quoted) in the talk page. pls look there.Truth222 (talk) 09:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of what's wrong with the text:

Saying "Edsa II was to a far degree based on very personal moral issues of the church" is Original reasearch.
Adding Lagdemeo's comments makes the section to a political commentary, as described in [[Wikipedia:NPOV#Impartial_tone|]], rather than using an impartial tone. Besides, Angel Lagdameo had no significant role in EDSA II and his comments have no place in this article.
You added Aquino's "apology" to Erap without making any note of her admission that she was joking... and if you add that not that what she said was a joke then there's no point in making note of the "apology" at all.
You added Diokno's commentary, which again is political commentary rather than impartial tone. Besides, his comments are completely out of place in the section, which doesn't talk about Estrada at all.
In the United Nations report you seem to be cherry picking statistics to present a biased view. There may be a salvageable statement in this part, but it needs to present a full picture, and I'd like to see a link to this report.

TheCoffee (talk) 16:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pls look at the talk page. Truth222 (talk) 22:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is consensus among editors that your additions do not belong on the article, and continuing to insist on adding them is disruptive. I've shown restraint so far, but if you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. TheCoffee (talk) 10:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]