selective disclosure

there are people who like to preen in public
and then when you ask for details
suddenly go silent.

something you announce publicly
you should also be able to discuss publicly.

not everyone takes statements at face value.
you should be able to substantiate.

once you see it...

someone telling me the other high-level editors
were probably scratching their heads
when they implemented the corrections i requested
for the unconventional edits
made by the one who's supposed to be the country's best...

me:  'they won't notice...  his [white] profile pic fades into the [white] background...'

not noticeable but on record still...
and yes, visible when one looks closely...  hah!


so there i was already appalled at the kind of data
being entered into the database
by this guy who's holding a post
supposed to be reserved for the country's best.

well, guess what, i then see him modify an entry
from the correct format to the wrong one!
yes!  the address was fine
and he decided to edit it
and again put an unnecessary preposition!

nyahahahaha...  toinks!!!

can't he just save unconventional entries for himself?
does he really have to ruin an existing good record?
he's supposed to make things better not worse!

this guy better learn the requirements for his post.
people are supposed to top their good work not their bad.

consistently wrong

i was going to do an edit
and again saw this
unconventional / unnecessary-preposition format.

me:  'wah!  i bet it's him!'

i checked the history...
true enough, it's one of his accounts!

wahaha...  trademark?!

then and now,
seven years back,
two months ago,
the guy's edits are consistent
->  consistently wrong.

why on earth
is he holding a post
reserved for the country's best???

to borrow someone else's remark,
referring to some other action
by the very same guy (!),
"Very strange behaviour for [a high-level post]
and for sure very strange edits against the commonly accepted style guide"



nobody's perfect.
the best people make mistakes.
that's understandable.

but to be consistently wrong
about something you are supposed to know
is inexcusable.


oftentimes people get promoted
without yet possessing
the skills and qualities
required for their new position.

they are, however, expected to acquire them preferably soonest.

if, however, it's been more than six years
and the person still does not know the basic,
that is disturbing.

yeah, there is a learning curve
but it is not supposed to be that slow.

step up.


posted the last set of the address correction requests today.

i was actually hesitant to request them,
the corrections being so basic.
the records, however, are high-profile ones
so i decided to give it a go.

i don't really know
why a preposition
was put in those addresses.

it is not normally done.
it is not necessary.

where on earth did it come from?

no, these were not unintentional.
they were deliberately done
for every single one of those records.

why, oh, why, oh, why?
(YOYOY, hehe)

there is actually a reference in the style sheet
but it is for something else.
was it misunderstood?
the wording is simple.

the thought processes
(the logic, uhm, lack of it)
and actions
of this one holding a position
supposed to be reserved for the country's best
have been making me cringe.

someone reacting to one of his explanations before
actually said:
"This doesn’t seem to be a rational, valid reason."


look out

one cannot teach what he does not know.

the problem though
is there are those
who do not know
that they do not know.

there are those who think they know
when they actually don't.

they go about doing things
thinking they are right.

when they spread their mistaken views
they worsen instead of improve things.

the one-eyed leading the blind is understandable.

the one-eyed leading the clear-sighted is absurd.

be careful of your guides.


there are people whose past activities you come across
and then you realize that's how they got to where they are right now.

their work speaks for how they earned their post.

and then there are those whose activities you come across
and you cannot help but wonder how on earth they got their current post.

their work simply is not in consonance with what their post requires.

the more you see, the more they lose cred.  unbelievable!  ugh!


you know how it is
when you see someone do something that makes you cringe?

and then you see him do it for this record and that?

and then you see a bunch of records and realize
that that's really how he does it?

yes, he did not just mistakenly do it...
he's been doing it deliberately and consistently!


why would anyone do that?
especially one who holds a position
reserved for the best editors of each country???

so many questionable actions, then and now...

luck runs out...
shape up or ship out...

step up

why would someone pad his résumé?
why would he exaggerate his accomplishments?

why can't he just state things as they are?

maybe because the actual is not enough.
maybe because he feels inadequate.

best to flesh things out.
step up or step down.

he may be able to fool some
but not everyone.

and he definitely cannot fool himself
->  unless he has come to believe his own hype.

maximize and minimize

life isn't all rainbows and unicorns...
not everyday is a sunny day...
not all the time everything is pleasant...

me, i try to postpone unpleasant stuff
for when the day is about to end...
that way, i have the rest of the day for pleasant things...
i'd just have a short unpleasant time
in between that and bedtime
after which i'd already be dreaming sweet dreams...

the day is on the whole fine...

life is good...

: )


you do something you are not supposed to do
you do not know it's not supposed to be done
you are intentionally committing a violation.

the latter is definitely not good.

the first, well, as the legal principle goes,
ignorance of the law is no excuse.

for those who hold certain positions,
certain things they have to know.
not knowing these things means
they do not deserve to hold the position.

show some shame.
let go of your post.

the right kind

those who say
that it is better to be kind than to be right
are usually arguing for the wrong.

you can do what is right
and still be kind
->  not to the wrong, however,
but to the wronged.

that is just as fine.


winner takes all

someone persistently rooting for a settlement.


those with a really strong case expect to win.
they do not really think of settlements.
it is the expected loser who should seek one out.


some information you provide
not to brag,
not to intimidate,
not just because it is relevant
but more so because it is important.

talking about medical conditions
without saying that you are a doctor
would not just seem odd
but would even be wrong.

you are supposed to give
the person you're talking to
a full appreciation
of the matter at hand.

you do not withhold material information.

you are supposed to tell
not just the truth
but the whole truth.

anything less would be a part-lie.


there are times when you have to bring up credentials,
not to brag, not to pry,
not to extol, not to belittle,
but simply to determine credibility.

you don't just believe anyone
who talks about anything.

where is he coming from?
is he knowledgeable on the topic?
what is his track record?
does he pad?
is he honest?

will his statements be based on
knowledge and experience, expertise even,
will they be based on
imagination, assumptions, presumptions and speculations?

you have to know
whether the exchange will just be some small talk
whether it will be a substantial discussion.

be wary of someone
who reacts negatively
to his own credentials being brought up.

you don't suppress credentials.
you present them.


chronology is VERY important.

it's not just about what happened
but when it happened.

you don't string events randomly.
you put them in order.

someone entered
and then
you locked the door

paints an altogether different picture from

you locked the door
and then
someone entered.

rascals could easily appear pitiful
by narrating events out of sequence.

ask questions.

don't be fooled.

wait and see

have yet to write the blog i've told a friend i will...
yes!  something pleasant...  : )

i have a list of topics i want to write about
as an offshoot of an unpleasant (what an understatement, wahaha) experience though.
i want to complete them all before proceeding to my normal topics.
i just want the blogs connected with
the great <insert unflattering adjective here>
to all be in one block.
from june 29 to whatever end date.

after the blogs, i can already spend nighttime thinking smiley stuff.
looking forward to a windfall.
yes, it's not over till the prescriptive period ends.


some things logically go together.

prized asset.
trustworthy steward.

leave something you value
to someone dishonest
and you're courting disaster.

don't risk it.


you have control only over your own actions.
other people's reactions are up to them.

you cannot choose their response to the things that you do.

you cannot say,
"you shouldn't have reacted that way..."

that could so easily be countered with,
"you should not have acted the way you did in the first place."

just because you got away with one,
with two,
with three,
doesn't mean you can get away with anything.

not all the time people will put up with you.

don't push your luck.

manage from source.

forest and trees

when caught up in the moment it is easy to lose sight of the big picture.

which one is action?
which is mere reaction?

who did what when?
yes, chronology is important.

trace to source.
you'll get things right.


someone saying that if only the holder of this high-level access were active then it would be easier to clean up the db.

haha... i'm thinking it could be a blessing in disguise that he became inactive.

the guy is a loose cannon, recently chalking up three major face-palm moves within one week!

instead of looking to him to save the day, maybe it would be better to have others take on powerful access.

i have two in mind, four even, who i believe are responsible and trustworthy. in time they will get there.

no need to settle.

deal with it

someone asking me what the great conjurer of falsehoods has to do to avoid being penalized.


don't ask me.
i don't intend to think about it.

it's HIS problem not mine.

kid gloves off

friend telling me since the offender has been exposed then maybe things could already end there.

haha... nah.

my mindset is to
1. expose
2. stop
3. prevent
4. penalize

1 is not even complete yet.

in this case, 2 and 3 would probably happen only when 4 is done.

the lying, grandstanding, speculative, irresponsible creature has been getting away with so much he probably thinks the well of understanding / gullibility does not run dry.

well, it does.

what you tolerate you perpetuate.

it's time to make him experience payback time.

pay the price

you have to talk to people in a language that they understand.

you cannot expect unscrupulous people
to fathom the value of integrity and reputation.

put in a monetary penalty
for tarnishing something so sterling
and they just might get an idea.

they may not understand the value of values
but they will understand the value of money.

some offenses can be brushed aside.
others require payback.
you have to be careful
about the ones you commit
and the people you offend.

mistakes can cost you  ->  BIG-time.

the big picture

context is king.

a move may be fine in itself
but coming on the heels of certain events,
it becomes questionable, even downright censurable.

if, for instance, you've been called out
for certain actions
not just once,
not just twice,
but thrice
within the span of a week,
downgrading visibility
while performing similar actions
should be the last thing you should do.

the move becomes all the more suspicious
if it's not consistent
with how you've done things for years
and how you're currently doing things in other areas.

if you have nothing to hide
stay in the light.


just because you don't see it doesn't mean it's not there.

just because you conceal it doesn't mean it won't be exposed.
(Luke 8:17)

if the norm is to be visible then why be invisible?

there's supposed to be nothing private, embarrassing or wrong
about the things that you do.

or is there?

legend in his own mind

every project begins somewhere.
from ideas that are broached in simple meetings
to proposals that are put forth in elaborate presentations. 

come project kickoff,
the users, the stakeholders, the contractors,
the ones who planted the seeds for project implementation,
would ideally be invited.
but these people are not supposed to just go around
touting a Partnership with the companies involved.

for someone who pitched an idea
to so publicly announce
that BIG companies
partnered with him for a project,
elevating himself
to the level of the companies making the proposal a reality,
is a bit of a stretch.

you could say you were part of the project.
you did this.  you did that.

but to exaggerate your role
to a point that is out of your league
is misleading at best;
legally actionable at worst.

don't push you luck.


there is a world
bigger than the one
where simpleminded people
tackle simple problems.

in that world
big issues requiring immediate attention
blow up left and right
and one is supposed to remain sharp and undaunted.

issues are supposed to be managed within certain levels
avoiding escalation as much as possible
because those in the higher levels
also have issues of their own to attend to.

is a sign of incompetence.

the issues you escalate
say something about the things
that you are unable to handle.

if something so simple
you see the need to escalate,
what then can you manage?

if the answer is
"not even the minor"
then you should not be occupying
a position so major.

to each according to his ability

"with great power comes great responsibility."

you can't handle great responsibility?

you should not be entrusted with great power.