Talk:Naga, Cebu
 | A news item involving Naga, Cebu was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 22 September 2018. |  |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Naga, Cebu article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
Barangay Uling of Naga, Cebu, Philippines
editBarangay Uling of the city of Naga, Cebu is one of the farthest inland barangay of the city located 28 kilometer from the midtown. The barangay is also very accessible to any kind of vehicles being situated along the Naga-Toledo Road and bounded in the west by Toledo City and the famous Atlas Mining Development Corporation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlbaylosis (talk • contribs) 08:42, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Unbuttered Parsnip
editUser:Unbuttered Parsnip, Why do you keep on reverting my edits even if it's stated in the source provided? You reverted my edits 3 times. 21:16, 22 December 2015 (PST)
- Unbuttered Parsnip reverted my edit for the 4th time as of this writing. User never attempted to settle consensus on this talk page. Report will be updated accordingly. Whatever the admin's decision on this, I will comply. – HavenHost 22:07, 22 December 2015 (PST)
- Report: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Unbuttered Parsnip reported by User:HavenHost (Result: )
- @HavenHost: I understand you must be frustrated, but it is always better to focus on content, not editors on article talk pages. I see a couple of minor issues with your proposed edit, particularly the use of external links within the prose of the article. Fixable stuff; let's work on it here ok? How do you feel about renaming this section to something more constructive? VQuakr (talk) 07:02, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- @VQuakr: Hello! Thank you for your kind response. I highly appreciate it. I do apologize for any shortcomings though. Actually, I got frustrated by the editor's violation of the three revert rule. The editor keeps on reverting my edits for more than 3 occasions even if the info I added had reliable sources. Anyway, I reported the editor for edit warring in which I'm glad that there was an immediate action regarding the matter since the editor in question had also edit warring issues with others in the past. But moving forward, I agree with you, it's always better to focus on content. I will be making necessary changes on this article particularly on the Economy section with reliable sources to back me up. Hope my contribution to Wikipedia would be of great help. Again, thank you so much and may you have a wonderful day! HavenHost (talk) 18:11, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
- @HavenHost: I understand you must be frustrated, but it is always better to focus on content, not editors on article talk pages. I see a couple of minor issues with your proposed edit, particularly the use of external links within the prose of the article. Fixable stuff; let's work on it here ok? How do you feel about renaming this section to something more constructive? VQuakr (talk) 07:02, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- Report: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Unbuttered Parsnip reported by User:HavenHost (Result: )
- Unbuttered Parsnip reverted my edit for the 4th time as of this writing. User never attempted to settle consensus on this talk page. Report will be updated accordingly. Whatever the admin's decision on this, I will comply. – HavenHost 22:07, 22 December 2015 (PST)
Copyright problem: Naga, Cebu
editUser:Unbuttered Parsnip has tagged the Economy section for Copyright problem when in fact the text has been modified from the source to achieve an encyclopedic tone as it complies with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout. I believe the user took it personally from me after Admin User:EdJohnston blocked him/her from edit warring on this article. It was I who reported the user for violation of 3RR. If you take a look at this link: http://www.philstar.com/business-usual/2012/06/25/820966/economic-boom-brings-prosperity-cebus-new-cities , you will clearly see my point and for that I strongly believe I haven't violated any copyright issues or whatsoever. Additionally, User:Unbuttered Parsnip haven't left any note on this talk page to why the section should be considered a copyright violation. User never made an attempt to resolve dispute on this article's talk page and has been attacking editors personally just like what the user did here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Feel free to notify me if there would be any disputes. Thank you so much.
– HavenHost (talk) 05:24, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
- Only a few sentences are involved in the complaint. If there is too much similarity, someone could propose a rewrite here on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 14:30, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you EdJohnston. Yes, only a few sentences are involved in the complaint and there is no actually too much similarity though. I will try to rewrite the whole section and will reinstate reliable reference. HavenHost (talk) 14:54, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
- I just had a look at the latest version with a copyright tag, vs. the current version, and the only significantly matching phrase I could find was 290 mw circulating fluidized bed combustion cfbc thermal plant, and I find it difficult to determine how one would rewrite that. Although such a technical description might not be necessary, maybe just call it a 290 megawatt power plant.--kelapstick(bainuu) 05:25, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- That would do. I will rewrite it using 290 megawatt power plant then. Thank you. ~HavenHost (talk) 05:30, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Rubbish piece of old blog. 2011 vintage. Small power station, just lot plenty of others. Because you don't know what it is, and can't even read circulating fluidized bed combustion thermal plant, you have took out the only think which might be worth saying.
- EdJohnston, Kelapstick, I believe the copyvio assertion has substance. It seems to me that the content added on 6 December 2015 with this edit is substantially copied or copy-pasted from the source identified by Unbuttered Parsnip, http://www.philstar.com/business-usual/2012/06/25/820966/economic-boom-brings-prosperity-cebus-new-cities, dated 25 June 2012. I've removed and then rewritten that section for that reason; please feel free to undo that if I am mistaken. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:00, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
- Justlettersandnumbers, yes there was a significant copyright problem in the body of the text, which had been rewritten (and further rewritten by you now, thank you for that). Having said that, Unbuttered Parsnip later reverted the attempted rewording (thus reading a even more significant copyright violation), then took to socking to continue to revert. I've gone ahead and revdeled the revisions in question, much thanks. --kelapstick(bainuu) 20:44, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
- EdJohnston, Kelapstick, I believe the copyvio assertion has substance. It seems to me that the content added on 6 December 2015 with this edit is substantially copied or copy-pasted from the source identified by Unbuttered Parsnip, http://www.philstar.com/business-usual/2012/06/25/820966/economic-boom-brings-prosperity-cebus-new-cities, dated 25 June 2012. I've removed and then rewritten that section for that reason; please feel free to undo that if I am mistaken. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:00, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
- Rubbish piece of old blog. 2011 vintage. Small power station, just lot plenty of others. Because you don't know what it is, and can't even read circulating fluidized bed combustion thermal plant, you have took out the only think which might be worth saying.
- That would do. I will rewrite it using 290 megawatt power plant then. Thank you. ~HavenHost (talk) 05:30, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- I just had a look at the latest version with a copyright tag, vs. the current version, and the only significantly matching phrase I could find was 290 mw circulating fluidized bed combustion cfbc thermal plant, and I find it difficult to determine how one would rewrite that. Although such a technical description might not be necessary, maybe just call it a 290 megawatt power plant.--kelapstick(bainuu) 05:25, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you EdJohnston. Yes, only a few sentences are involved in the complaint and there is no actually too much similarity though. I will try to rewrite the whole section and will reinstate reliable reference. HavenHost (talk) 14:54, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Suspected IP sockpuppets of User:Unbuttered Parsnip:
These IP users refuse to discuss on talk page. One IP violates Wikipedia:Civility, as well as WP:NPA as can be seen here: User_talk:112.198.82.55.
Copyright problem removed
editPrior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.philstar.com/business-usual/2012/06/25/820966/economic-boom-brings-prosperity-cebus-new-cities. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)
For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:00, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Removed External Link and replaced with official website
editUpon investigating on the link, it was found to be a link to an external blog and does not focus on the City of Naga, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zerozeke (talk • contribs) 15:08, 12 April 2018 (UTC)