|WikiProject Tambayan Philippines||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
Maipapan la koma iti literatura
Inikkatko pay laeng dagiti dadduma a links a saan a related iti Ilokano literature. Maipanto dagitoy a links iti appropriate nga article a marugian, ti Ilokano people ken/wenno Ilokano culture. Saluyot 09:14, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
Ilokano or Ilocano?
Idawatko kadagiti kakadua a makipagtamtaming iti daytoy nga artikulo a ti aramatentay' koma lattan ket Ilokano (k) imbes nga Ilocano (c). Apay? Awan met ketdi ti nagdumaan ti kayat a sawen wenno kayat nga ipasimudaag wenno iparangarang dagitoy a dua a balikas. Kunada, English kano no letra "c" ngem kinapudnona saan nga English daytoy no di ketdi Español. Ngem agsipud kadi ta English ti texto ket "inglesen" met ti proper nouns nga aramaten? Di kad' napimpintas met laeng no 'tay nakail-ilokano nga Ilokano ti mausar? Agbalin pay ketdi a non-existing article wenno stub laeng no "Ilocano" wenno "iloco" ti usaren no pagbalinen nga internal link (wenno mai-redirect iti Ilokano met laeng), ta ti maus-usar ditor Wikipedia ket "Ilokano" ken "Iloko" wenno "Iluko" kas rinugian dagiti pagtamdantay' a linguists ditoy kas ken ni Apo Chris Sundita iti Ilokano language article. - Saluyot 00:43, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
"Iloko Literature: a Historical Sketch" by Jose A. Bragado
May I just note here that this essay, an original piece, by Mr. Jose A. Bragado is a paper he presented during the National Writers Congress in Cebu City on February 18-21, 1994. It was published in LINGKA An Anthology of Iloko Literature in English by GUMIL Metro Manila in 1994, with Honor Blanco Cabie, Cles B. Rambaud and Placido R. Real Jr. as editors. I lifted this essay from the book as is, parts of it was omitted to conform to wikipedia requirements but the essay is unedited and untouched to preserve its originality in form and in intention.
As such, may I request to those who are participating or collaborating in the expansion of this article to just leave the said essay as it is. Or if there are certain things that needed to be corrected or rectified as to the authenticity or veracity of its facts, may I request that we first discuss it here before finally editing it.
I say this because today I found out that the essay was edited in some parts. It's just minor edits but I think some of the terms changed inevitably revised or altered the way some original facts are presented.
For example, the original "Iloko Literature" in the title was changed to "Ilocano Literature." There is a change here not only in spelling but in the general tone and intent of the essay as the author's meaning is to present the history of the literature written in Iloko language. This is clear because in another essay which is an expanded version of the same essay (which is also published in LINGKA), the author wrote "I would like to differentiate the terms Iloko (also Iloco or Iluko) and Ilokano (sometimes spelled Ilocano). Iloko is the language, while Ilokano pertains to the people. (from "Iloko Literature: Its Development and Promise", LINGKA, pp. 208-218).
Further, the original "Iloko poetry" in the essay was changed to "Ilocano poetry," "Iloko writers" to "Ilocano writers" and so on. There is a distinction when you speak of Iloko poetry and that of Ilocano poetry when we honestly follow Mr. Bragado's explanation about the terms "Iloko" and "Ilokano." What Mr. Bragado is saying here is about the poetry written in the Iloko language and not about poetry written by Ilokano people/writers.
Also, throughout the essay, the original letter "k" in Iloko and Ilokano was changed to letter "c". Let me reveal that among us Ilokano writers and Iloko authors, we generally use "k" in Ilokano, Iloko or Iluko even when writing in English. Mr. Bragado adhered to it so let's respect his original purpose.
Saluyot 01:35, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
To Ed666: Please refrain from reverting or editing Mr. Bragado's essay if you cannot provide any explanation on why you are insisting yourself and why you are saying my efforts here are "unnecessary" when in fact I was the one who started this wikipedia article.
What I am requesting is just a little courtesy and respect to the author of the essay in question. Why not discuss it with me here instead of going mad at me? Ammok a no pagsaritaantayo daytoy a banag ditoy, with open minds, makapagkaykaysatayo la ketdi a manganamong iti no ania ti nasken ken mainugot. Sapay koma, apo Ed666, ta maawatandak. -- Saluyot 00:09, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
To the one who deleted the link to geekmannurat blog, may I remind you that this is a blog by Ilokano writer and as such it deserves listing under "Blogs by Ilokano writers". It is not the fact that it is my own blog (and that I am the one who, after all, started this Ilokano literature wikipedia article) that I insist on listing it here, the point is I am an Ilokano writer and it is my blog and that in that blog I present and discuss also about fiction writing, specially science fiction writing, as a complement blog to my main blog mannurat.com.
Thanks for your cooperation and understanding.
Saluyot 04:46, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
on editing and/or reverting
Ipostek man daytoy. This might help. This is Wikipedia's guideline on reverting:
Revert wars considered harmful (the three revert rule)
Wikipedia policy states that you may not revert any article more than three times in the same day. See Wikipedia:Three revert rule for details on this.
High-frequency reversion wars make the page history less useful, waste space in the database, make it hard for other people to contribute, and flood recent changes and watchlists. Sock puppets may not be used to violate this rule. Please request protection rather than reverting. Violation of this rule may lead to protection of the page on the version preferred by the non-violating party; blocking; or investigation by the Arbitration Committee.
Being reverted can feel a bit like a slap in the face—"I worked hard on those edits, and someone just rolled it all back". However, sometimes a revert is the best response to a less-than-great edit, so we can't just stop reverting. What's important is to let people know why you reverted. This helps the reverted person because they can remake their edit, but fixing whatever problem it is that you've identified.
Explaining reverts also helps other people. For example, it lets people know whether they need to even view the reverted version (in the case of, eg, "rv page blanking"). Because of the lack of paralanguage online, if you don't explain things people will probably assume all kinds of nasty things, and that's how edit wars get started.
If your reasons for reverting are too complex to explain in the edit summary, drop a note on the Talk page. A nice thing to do is to drop the note on the Talk page first, and then revert, rather than the other way round. Sometimes the other person will agree with you and revert for you before you have a chance. Conversely, if someone reverts your change without apparent explanation, you may wish to wait a few minutes to see if they explain their actions on the article's talk page or your user talk page.
-- Saluyot 05:21, August 8, 2005 (UTC)