RafaelMinuesa

Copyright problems with Rob Lalumiere

Hello. Concerning your contribution, Rob Lalumiere, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.usscooper.com/interviewees.html. As a copyright violation, Rob Lalumiere appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Rob Lalumiere has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:

• If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Rob Lalumiere and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and CC-BY-SA, under CC-BY-SA, or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Rob Lalumiere with a link to where we can find that note.
• If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Rob Lalumiere.

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you.  Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Deep Gold

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Deep Gold, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.newcebufilms.com/in-production.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 06:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Continued problems with Rob Lalumiere

Changing a few words does relieve the article of copyright violation. The wording is still substantially the same as this copyrighted text and is considered plagiarism. Please read WP:PLAG for further info. In its present state, the article will be deleted. In addition to that, you mentioned on the article talk page that it autobiographical. Writing articles about oneself is strongly discouraged because of the inherent conflict of interest. In general, if someone else isn't writing about you, than you probably will not meet WP guidelines for notability. It is always best to wait and let an independent neutral party submit an article. — CactusWriter | ^needles 05:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Update regarding copyright concern

Since we do not yet have verification of permission by the processes set out above and sufficient time has passed since the placement of the notice, the article has been deleted for copyright concerns. This deletion is not necessarily permanent. If you have already sent a letter to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) and GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) (if you are not the copyright holder or have co-authored the material, release under CC-BY-SA-compatible license alone is sufficient), the article will be restored when that letter is received and processed by the Wikimedia Communications committee. Likewise, if you have not yet sent a letter, you still may (or resend it, if you believe your original may have been lost), and the article will be restored when that letter is received and processed.

As Wikipedia does not require proof of identity on account creation, it is essential that we receive external proof of authorization in order to ensure that we remain compliant with US Copyright law. It is also essential that we verify that copyright holders understand the extent of the release they are authorizing, in that our licenses permit modification and reuse in any forum, even commercial publication, as long as authorship credit is maintained and future copies are compatibly licensed.

Please note that once permission is verified, the material may be evaluated and altered to meet Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Although we appreciate donations, we cannot guarantee that material donated will be retained.

If you have questions about the verification procedure, please feel free to contact me at my talk page. Alternatively, you might address them at the talk page of the copyright policy, which is generally monitored by volunteers experienced in processing such matters. Thank you. — CactusWriter | ^needles 00:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm I looked for an autoblock from the above, and can't find it. Are you still autoblocked? Syrthiss (talk) 13:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Syrthiss.

Sorry, my mistake, I think it was the IP address that belongs to a Network the one that it was being banned

Everything appears clear, so I've removed the unblock requests. If you still can't edit, please put up a new one. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Lanius CMS

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Lanius CMS, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://laniuscms.sourceforge.net/docs/introduction.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 08:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Copyright licensing for text at Lanius CMS

Hi, RafaelMinuesa. I have also left this reply at the Lanius CMS talk page. Please note that the GNU license is for the product, not the product description text on the website page. GNU licenses are not compatible with Wikipedia. As you have also noted the website indicates the text is licensed under Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported (CC-BY-NC-SA). Unfortunately, the CC-BY-NC-SA is also incompatible with Wikipedia licensing requirements. Please see the chart at Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright#Can I add something to Wikipedia that I got from somewhere else? for license compatibility. The text needs to be removed, rewritten in completely original language or released through the methods outlined at WP:DCP. If you have further questions, please feel free to ask me. — CactusWriter | ^needles 09:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi CactusWriter

A member of Lanius team has updated the page in order to be released under the CC-BY-SA license.

The static page is also updated: http://laniuscms.sourceforge.net/docs/introduction.htm as well as the source wiki page: http://wiki.laniuscms.org/index.php/Introduction

Great. With the source pages in compliance, I've removed the copyright violation template. Just a reminder: the text from the source may be used now - but only if it meets the Wikipedia policies on neutral point-of-view and non-promotional text. Thanks for handling the CV problem. Cheers. — CactusWriter | ^needles 08:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Lanius CMS

The article Lanius CMS has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Can not find signs of notability for this product.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Haakon (talk) 15:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Welcome, and some remarks

Hi.

You and I are in a discussion on Talk:History of the Philippines re edits which you made to that article. I'll disccuss the specifics of that there but, as I see that you appear to be relatively new to Wikipedia (at least as a registered contributor), I want to welcome you and make a few remarks here.

To be a successful contributor, you will need to read about the five pillars of Wikipedia and to read a few of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, lists of which can be seen at WP:LOP and WP:LGL. As a content contributor, you will need to be very familiar with the three core content policies, WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR. Also, considering the remarks and warnings above, you should probably read WP:COPY. Welcome to the community. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Wtmitchell,

I have actually contributed to Wikipedia quite a lot, for over 6 years and in different languages, mostly anonymous edits, but it won't hurt to re-read the guidelines. I'm also a very busy man, trying to find some time to contribute to this great project. --RafaelMinuesa (talk) 05:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Philippines education during Spanish rule

Thanks for creating this article. This will further serve as an eye-opener to the Filipinos who where blinded by the Black Propaganda of......I don't have to mention that nationality.....You absolutely know who they are....LOL!.....and who were also blinded by the Filipino historians who are puppets of......I am currently working on the Spanish language in the Philippines article and a bit busy contributing and editing there. Perhaps this link would be of help to the article ---> Centro de Estudios y Experimentación de Obras Públicas (CEDEX), Teaching and Health Care during Spanish rule. The original site is no longer available online at http://www.cedex.es/cehopu/expomanila/. The original pages were archived here --------> http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.cedex.es/cehopu/expomanila/ . Have a good day! :) █►Bacoleño◄█ █►talk◄█ 10:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

De nada. :) I do agree that it's difficult to make a research on this kind of topic. One of the Filipino Wikipedians who happens to live in Spain said that there are still many historical documents about the Philippines during the Spanish rule that are just waiting to be rediscovered in the archives of Sevilla and Madrid. He was able to read some of those. By the way, here's a good page: The Situation of Spanish in the Philippines and Other Hispano-Filipino articles-----> Philippine education during the Spanish era by Bambi Harper█►Bacoleño◄█ █►talk◄█ 16:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

P.S. The original article of Philippine education during the Spanish era by Bambi Harper was archived here --> http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.inq7.net/opi/2002/apr/06/text/opi_blharper-1-p.htm since the original site is no longer available at http://www.inq7.net/opi/2002/apr/06/text/opi_blharper-1-p.htm █►Bacoleño◄█ █►talk◄█ 17:01, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Spanish-American War

I've moved your recent bold changes to the lede in the Spanish-American War article to the article talk page (see WP:BRD). Such changes need more consensus before being made. See Talk:Spanish–American War#Lede cleanup. I think that there were some problems with the changes, and I've commented there about that. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

July 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Treaty of Paris (1898) appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this important core policy. Thank you. See [Revision history of Treaty of Paris (1898) this reversion]. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Copy and paste between articles

I was just looking at your edit of History of Florida, where you seem to have copied text from Florida without a statement in your edit summary and a link to the article you've copied from. This is actually a copyright violation and I'd appreciate it if you would fix it. Please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia to see how to do this.

A lot of people don't know this, and I only know because I did it and was told more or less what I'm telling you, but they didn't give me any links!. Dougweller (talk) 12:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Dougweller.

I didn't know either. I'll fix now.

--RafaelMinuesa (talk) 12:49, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem, thanks. Dougweller (talk) 12:54, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with copying the material if you just put a link to the old article in the edit summary, saying 'copied from nnnnn'. I'm ashamed to say I have learned more about the history of Florida through Wikipedia than through having been born there and living there until I went away to university. Dougweller (talk) 13:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I see. Thank you for clarifying that. In any case, what I've done is to rewrite both excerpts, expanding more the historical sources in the History page.

To be completely honest with you, I had no idea that a place that Fort Mose had ever existed, leave alone in an ex-Spanish colony. I find the story absolutely fascinating. I am also learning more from Wikipedia than from any other "official" academic sources.

--RafaelMinuesa (talk) 16:19, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Monroe Commission on Philippine Education

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Monroe Commission on Philippine Education, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://eduphil.org/encyclopedia/MonroeReport.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 04:18, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem: Monroe Commission

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Monroe Commission, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to contain material copied from http://eduphil.org/encyclopedia/MonroeReport, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

• If you have permission from the author to release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Monroe Commission and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure you quote the exact page name, Monroe Commission, in your email. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0, or that the material is released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Monroe Commission with a link to where we can find that note.
• If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:Monroe Commission. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Monroe Commission saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! VernoWhitney (talk) 23:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi VernoWhitney, thank you for your advice.

A new draft of the article can now be viewed at: Talk:Monroe_Commission/Temp

Thanks --RafaelMinuesa (talk) 02:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Review of proposed rewrite

Good day,

As an administrator verifying the pending copyright issues, I have reviewed both the conversation history, the article pre-blanking and your proposed rewrite.

After reading your exchange with two other administrators and your assurances that you understood the concerns expressed, it is with considerable regret that I found further evidence of verbatim copying of several of the various sources used in the article - not only through manual reading, but even worse, through a simple machine-based verification.

Please do understand that using the copy / paste function for any text other than a direct quote (which must be identified as such by quotation marks AND direct attribution at the bare minimum) is a recipe for unintended close paraphrasing, which remains both a copyvio as well as an instance of plagiarism.

I do not doubt neither your good faith, your good will nor your passion for the subject, but considering that you have been cautioned by another admin, User:CactusWriter, in 2009, for similar concerns, I do have serious concerns about your ability to understand the nature of the issue here.

You did argue with my colleague Verno on "facts and figures", as well as fair use or that no court would find such minimal copying in infringement. While you are (probably - it's for a court to decide) right in your assessment of the current legal risk tied to the copying you performed, you appear to miss a fundamental fact. As editors, we are first and foremost bound by Wikipedia's policies. WP:C and WP:NFC set our standards of inclusion for third party text, and they are, by design and intent, much stricter than what the US law currently requires.

There are two primary reasons for that, the first one because we need to future-proof the encyclopedia. There has been a very marked trend over the past two decades to extend the reach of Copyright law in the USA. We need to ensure that our bar is sufficiently high that a tightening of the legal context doesn't suddenly render vast portions of Wikipedia illegal. But beyond that element, our fundamental mission is to provide the world with a free repository of knowledge. And we can only give away for free that which is ours - any content borrowed from third parties is not ours to give away, and it runs contrary to the core of our mission to keep any more of such content than absolutely necessary to explain and illustrate a particular topic.

It is in this context that I have deleted the article in conformity with our procedures. If you wish to start anew, the safest way to avoid any issues is to read your sources, then put them away, take a break for an hour or two, then return to your keyboard and summarize the events they describe in your own words. Any use of copy / pasted content is a risk - In over 18 months of reviewing copyright issues on Wikipedia, I've seen time and time again that an editor who copy / pastes and then rewrites leaves his work absolutely certain that he has sufficiently paraphrased the material - yet in the eyes of the reviewer, the source appears behind every rewritten turn of phrase as clear as the sun in the middle of the day. Last but not least, it is also my duty to caution you in firm terms against any further occurrences of such issues. Regardless of your good faith, if further issues appear in your future edits, we will be forced to limit your ability to edit. There are two policies on Wikipedia that suffer limited tolerance, and those are WP:BLP and WP:C. I urge you therefore to take the advice given to you at heart, not as a negative judgement on your character or your motivation, but as a sincere effort to find a way to retain your collaboration without having to worry about whether their wording is at issue.

Sincerely, MLauba ^(Talk) 21:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi MLauba, Thank you for your advice, much appreciated, really.

I will proceed to do a complete rewrite of the article in the way suggested.

Just wanted to ask, you just mentioned some kind of machine-based verification software, may I know what it is (and use it), or is it something reserved for administrators only.

Thank you --RafaelMinuesa (talk) 06:16, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Addition to Manila LRT article

Interesting addition to the Manila LRT article. Could you provide a reference? FAs usually are scrutinized more thoroughly and require high quality references to back up assertions in the article. Without an adequate reference your addition is open to removal. Lambanog (talk) 18:34, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have provided a reference. There are many available. I'll update as soon as possible. --RafaelMinuesa (talk) 19:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I took a look at El Folklore Filipino and could not find the information attributed to it. Could you provide the specific page number where the information can be found? Lambanog (talk) 10:04, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, the name of the book is actually "El folk-lore Filipino", with a hyphen. I corrected it already.

It has an appendix titled "Malabon Monográfico.”, and in Chapter III describes the Manila-Malabon tranvia. That appendix was published expressly for the special edition written for the 1887 Philippine Exposition in Madrid, and may be missing in other editions.

--RafaelMinuesa (talk) 11:08, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Notable Filipinos of Spanish ancestry

Hi, I just want to ask about the two other Filipinos that you added like Epifanio de los Santos and Claro M. Recto. I don't think that they are of Spanish descent. However, they did play an important role in Spanish scholary especially Epifanio. I was reading through their articles and I found no evidence that they are of Spanish ancestry. The article didn't mention anything about any of their family members having Spanish lineage. Unless I missed out something in that article. Would you care to point them out for me? Oh and also Gloria Macapagal Arroyo as well. Thanks Blueknightex (talk) 06:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Valladolid debate

You may not have noticed, but you've reverted three times within the last 24 hours at Valladolid debate. If you do it again you will be in violation of WP:3RR. Please, the discussion is ongoing, continuing to revert war is not productive.--Cúchullain ^t/c 01:23, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Again, the implementation of the Protector of Indians office didn't take place until the debate was over as new statutes within the Ordinances Concerning Discoveries. This doesn't contradict any reliable source. If it does, please let us know, that's all I'm asking since the beginning of this discussion. Again, where is your reliable source that says the Office of the Protector of Indians office was in place before the debate? You haven't provided any. You just have deleted perfectly valid material for no reason four times within the last 24 hours and now you refuse to give an explanation. That goes against the most basic principles of Wikipedia. And you know it. Provide your sources once and for all and stop threatening me --RafaelMinuesa (talk) 01:37, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

You're not hearing me. The burden of evidence is on YOU to defend your material. Again, it may be best to take a break from this for a while and come back to it with a clear head.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:30, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

This is the content that you have deleted:

The debate however, ultimately led to the issuing in 1573 of the new statutes within the Ordinances Concerning Discoveries, which explicitly forbade any unauthorized military operations against Native Americans. (1) After the issuing of the Ordinances, priests became the vanguard of further Spanish expansion in the New World. Only after the priests had made contact in a pacific manner with the local population and formed a mission community, would soldiers build military camps ("presidios") to protect the area. Both the 1573 Ordinances and the 1681 "Recompilation of the Laws of the Indies" gave strict regulations on the formation of these new communities in the Americas and on the treatment of the local population. (2)

Among the regulations was the implementation in all colonized settlements of a crown-appointed official known as the "Protector de Indios" (Protector of the Indians), an ecclesiastical representative who acted on behalf of the native population, and represented them in formal litigation. Bartolomé de Las Casas himself was the first person to be named Protector of the Indians. Other notable protectors were Juan de Zumarraga and Hernando de Luque. (3)

And these are the references:

1- "Indies, Laws of the". (2006). In Britannica Concise Encyclopedia. Retrieved November 22, 2006, from Encyclopædia Britannica Online http://geoanalyzer.britannica.com/ebc/article-9042315

2- Recopilación de leyes de los reynos de las Indias -publisher=Ediciones Cultura Hispánica -author=Council of the Indies (trans. Juan Manzano Manzano) -year=1973 (1681) -location=Madrid -pages=4 vols. -isbn=978-84-7232-204-2

3- The protector de indios in colonial New Mexico, 1659-1821 -publisher=University of New Mexico Press -author=Cutter, Charles R. -year=1986

All of it totally relevant, does not contradict any reliable source and it is perfectly referenced.

You have deleted it for no reason, and when challenged you have resorted to threats and veiled insults.

But not one reliable source that contradicts the content above. Nothing. You have deleted it all just because you say so, without bothering to give any explanation, threatening and insulting me just for "daring" to rightfully restore what had been wrongly deleted. I would really like to assume there is some good faith in your actions, but unfortunately there is clear evidence to the contrary.

--RafaelMinuesa (talk) 02:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Look. We have explained multiple times that the material is NOT suitably referenced and DOES contradict other cited sources. And we have engaged in extensive conversation on the talk page. You've done nothing to fix this besides ignoring the explanations and casting aspersions. When you're ready to deal with this in a more mature and productive fashion, I'm listening.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:33, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Try the new translation tool

Hello, I see that you're a translator. A new translation tool has been implemented and is ready for usage. Could you please try it by translating any page with Internet Explorer, and then report here on bugzilla if you find something wrong? We don't have many Internet Explorer testers, so your help would be very valuable. I also think that you'll enjoy translating with this tool. Thank you very much, Nemo 09:11, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

British invasion of the Philippines

Rafa, I saw your comment on the British invasion of Manila page. I've been trying to make the article flow better and give the correct idea about what happened. As it is it makes the British look successful, which they were not. The article should be called the "British invasion of the Philippines" because the British tried to conquer the Philippines. Could you please change the title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.185.191.58 (talk) 20:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)