Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines/Archive 9

message: It was a unanimous decision. See Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Battle_of_Leyte_Gulf. This brings our FA count down to 4. Reasons were lack of citations and general clean-up. There seems to be some effort at Talk:Battle of Leyte Gulf to bring this article back to Featured status. TheCoffee 04:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Battle of Leyte Gulf]] un-featured 

message: An editor (namely User talk:Planetary Chaos) keeps on adding "unsourced" tags on the Princess Charming article. Kindly help us finding better sources. Thanks! (See talk page for details) -Danngarcia 03:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What few references there are are simply links. Someone should fix them to reflect proper reference notation.Shrumster 23:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations on [[Princess Charming]] 

message: List of Philippine Presidents by middle name was nominated for deletion. Included in the nomination were the following lists:
:*List of Philippine Presidents by first name
:*List of Philippine Presidents by last name
:*List of Philippine Presidents by birthday) 
Please feel free to vote for/against the deletion (current consensus is strongly headed towards delete).
--- Tito Pao 15:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of Philippine Presidents by middle name]] is up for [[WP:AfD|AfD]] 

message: Rizalninoynapoleon has been quite excited as he [[moved election-related articles into ridiculous-sounding titles such as Philippine constitutional referendum, 1935 to Philippine 1935 Constitution plebiscite, 1935 (take note of the two 1935s in the title, lol). Can an admin rename them back to the original title, except that instead of referendum, replace it with plebiscite? Thanks. --Howard the Duck 14:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. I also did the same thing to 1987 and 1973. Was that ok? Also, take note of his move logs. Is there anything else you need done?  On another, I had some doubts about whether there should be a comma. It doesn't look right. Any ideas? --Chris S. 23:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the comma should present after the "election/plebiscite" word, followed by the year. As for the other things, I dunno since I got confused since s/he moved a lot of pages I can't recount their original names. --Howard the Duck 04:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here are two more articles with ridiculous-sounding titles: Philippine National (local) election, 1980 and Philippine National (local) election, 1988 (local? national? what?) I dunno what should be the correct name for these two, or whether these should even exist. (you'd place all of the local elections in one article?) --Howard the Duck 06:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hrmmmm.. At first thought, I thought that these should've been merged with the general election, but general elections weren't held on those years. One option would be to rename them into local elections. Another would be to split them into gubernatorial & mayoral elections.  Hmm, maybe provincial? But, anyway, I don't live in the Philippines so I don't have the slightest idea about the political system there, so I'll defer to you guys. --Chris S. 08:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Rizalninoynapoleon]] 

message: There has been a very wild AfDs of Philippine Presidential lists going on! I am asking all Filipino Wikipedians to help defend our articles. If ever I was wrong in creating these articles, then let's merge these or just completely delete these articles. But I think its biased with American Presidential lists articles! The United States Presidential trivia was kept after an AfD was imposed on it. (But now, it was nominated for AfD again, thanks to Jerry lavoie!).
If ever these articles are deleted, let's see if American Presidential lists and Canadian PM lists articles are too alike with ours.
By the way, here's the lists of Philippine Presidential lists that are up for deletion:
*List of Philippine Presidents by last name (Discuss)
*List of Philippine Presidents by middle name (Discuss)
*List of Philippine Presidents by first name (Discuss)
*List of Philippine Presidents by birthday (Discuss)
*List of Philippine Presidents by children (Discuss)
*List of Philippine Presidents by parentage (Discuss)
*List of Philippine Presidents by previous occupation (Discuss)
*List of Philippine Presidents by number of votes (Discuss)
*List of Philippine presidential trivia (Discuss)
*List of Philippine Presidents who served one term or less (Discuss)
*List of Philippine Presidents who served more than one term (Discuss)
And keep an eye on these articles (which are similarly identical with the RP Lists) if it doesn't gets deleted just like the Philippine presidential lists articles:
*United States Presidential trivia (Discuss 2nd Nomination) (See discussion; nominated on November 2006) (modified slightly by --Howard the Duck 06:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, some these are quite trivial (in other words, cruft) and for me, there wouldn't be a problem if they'd get deleted. If you want other lists to be deleted, nominate them for deletion too. --Howard the Duck 05:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Howard the Duck for your involvement in this forum. Actually, I wouldn't prefer to put AfD on my own with other similar articles because they may blame me of counter-attack. I'll just recommend it to others just like what Jerry lavoie did. -- Kevin Ray 06:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can copy and paste their arguments but instead of Philippines, replace it with U.S. That'll clear Wikipedia of trivial lists. I'm actually want all of these (RP, US and other countries) to be deleted --Howard the Duck 06:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Howard. Some of the articles created were so trivial to be considered as encyclopedia articles. However, much effort was exerted that it would be in vain to lose all those information however trivial they may be. Don't we have a portal or project on the Philippine Presidency of sorts? Well, merge those trivial information on that project as early as now and just go on with the deletion of those trivial articles. I wouldn't wonder if some of the articles on the Vice-Presidency will be up for deletion as well. I remember I created the list of vice-presidents of the Philippines by length of office. Hope that isn't trivial. --Weekeejames 06:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  Isa ako dun sa mga nag-support sa Search and Destroy. I think the nomination was done in good faith THEN, since the category is really cluttered. Pasensya at hindi ko sinsersyoso yung AFD pero talagang redundant yung mga ninominate na articles eh (me zodiac sign pa). Pero iba doon sa trivias, nakaka-amoy ako ng double-standard doon lalo na nung nakita yung AFD for the US version. Our version has nice citations while the US version has a lot of holes yet that was kept and ours is on the Delete side. I think the Search and Destroy tactic is neutral since it is against redundant articles for all nationalities. Nauna lang tayo. Pero i-monitor natin yung mga nominators if they would live up to their goals of ridding wikipedia of listcruft. Pag hinde, saka natin banatan pero wag ngayon. Cool muna Lenticel 04:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: But you've got the admit some lists were just silly, like List of Philippine Presidents by first name (WTF?), List of Philippine Presidents by number of votes (we have elections lists already), List of Philippine Presidents by birthday  (what's next, List of Barangay Ginebra Kings players by jersey numbers?), etc. --Howard the Duck 06:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: While the trivia one has more weight (not enough though, see WP:TRIVIA) than the others (and should probably be merged in with their respective president's articles), the other lists are quite ridiculous and listcruft. We have to remember, not everything useful or interesting belongs in an encyclopedia. Kevin, as most of the lists are already doomed, I suggest opening a Philippine Presidents fansite on a free web provider like geocities. Some of the lists can be interesting, but in the end, plainly unencyclopedic. If it were up to me, encyclopedic lists of presidents should be in order of date of service, period. Shrumster 12:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Should have known better! On December 28, 2006, six days after I finished the last article needed to fill the Philpres template, KaElin said, "What will be the next list--List of Presidents by how many times they burp?" It should have served as a warning that some of those articles would be doomed. Now one by one, the links to the articles on the template are going back coloured red. I was suggesting to save the information and merge them on the portal page. For example, if there was a silly article called List of Philippine Presidents by how many times they got booed in Congress, we can still save the silly trivial article on Portal:Presidency of the Philippines/List of Philippine Presidents by how many times they got booed in Congress. It now can no longer be considered a standalone article but a part of the portal project. Gawin nyo na to hangang maaga kesa unti-unti mabubura ang mga article na yun. Sayang pagod nyo. --Weekeejames 06:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Or you can transfer those to the Philippines wikia. --Howard the Duck 06:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ALERT: AfD of Philippine Presidential lists goes wild! 

message: Just so that you guys would know: I have added a level three NPA warning on User_talk:searcher007's talk page for his behavior in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Super Twins nom page. I've seen him behave like this on other pages---in particular, the WP:AFD page on the now-deleted Kristine Bernal article; accordingly, I posted a user warning on his page because he did this to other editors before, so I decided back then that he needs something stronger than a first-level warning. This time around, I'm doing it again (with a stronger warning), because it seems he has this habit of treating good-faith edits and AfD nominations as slights on his personality and on his ability as an editor. 
--- Tito Pao 06:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:searcher007|User:searcher007]]'s behavior 

message: ...has received level-four warnings for repeatedly removing AfD notices. Just so that the Tambayan community will know: because of this, I have reported him to WP:ANI. --- Tito Pao 16:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Update. As I write this, this user is blocked from editing for 24-hours. --- Tito Pao 16:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

text: We should keep watch after his block expires. According to his talk page history, he's been very uncooperative regarding WP policies, especially his uploading of copyrighted pics copied straight from online sources. Shrumster 12:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: on the other side of the fence, another user that uploads like crazy is User:Wowowee 13. And some others, too. --Howard the Duck 12:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I can gather in the talk pages, he was blocked on January 26, 2007, at 20:58 UTC. His/her last edit, interestingly, was on January 26, at 20:44 UTC (or January 27, at about 4:44 local time, since I can see all logs using Manila time). It appears that after the 24-hour block, wowowee13 thought that he was banned on Wikipedia for good and either decided not to come back, or to post more pictures under a different user name. Let's see what comes up in relation to this user. --- Tito Pao 12:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, I think I speedy-nuked some of his pics (and articles) for copyright infringement as well. I'll keep an eye on his uploads too. Sigh...it seems like being the white blood cells of wikipedia is a full-time hobby. Lol. Shrumster 12:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like some of the pics are still up pa pala. I guess the admins have a significant backlog. Oh well, at least he's stopped uploading for a while. Shrumster 12:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Heheheh...happily, no one started calling us verdugos. Oh, maybe I should call myself one? ;) As for his/her not uploading more pics, that remains to be seen.... --- Tito Pao 12:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Booze broads and bullets]]... 

message: Guys I saw this on PDI but since their servers are down, I give this site instead.
I think its really sweet, especially in this valentine season. Buti pa yung Stone Age person may ka-date, ako 'di ko nga matanong yung ... ---- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lenticel (talk • contribs) 05:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ooops I forgot to sign. Lenticel 05:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  How sweet! Well, they say that college is the best hunting or fishing (? - biology inclined yata!) ground for a husband or wife. So, while in college, mag hunting o fishing na! LoL! --Ate Pinay  (talk•email) 16:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ancient Love 

message: I have been assigning colors to political parties from the 1st Congress of the Philippines to 7th Congress of the Philippines. Checking on their websites, Nacionalista Party uses sea green (█) as their dominant color, Liberal Party — cobalt blue (█), Nationalist People's Coalition — hunter green (█), for the others they don't seem to have websites. In the mentioned articles, other minor parties who were in coalition or caucuses with either Nacionalista or Liberal is assigned a color close to the dominant party's. 
I have assigned though yellow (█) for Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino basing on their logo (the yellow lightning being the centerpiece of it), Lakas-CMD — orange (█) as it's the most dominant color during their campaigns, Kilusang Bagong Lipunan — red (█), it was obviously the color used by Marcos loyalists vs Cory's yellow. For the other I have no idea what to assign. —Scorpion prinz 13:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting, although someone (User:Glenncando?) told me Lakas-CMD uses blue while the pro-Erap groups use orange, NP used green and LP used yellow. --Howard the Duck 15:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Erap's party consistently uses orange...actually, it's orange and blue. Trust me---I used to live in San Juan. --- Tito Pao 17:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So what colors do we assign then? Erap's party though might just be limited to Partido ng Masang Pilipino, which is not exactly a dominant party it just coalesces with the other major ones. Scorpion prinz 23:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd rather place orange for all pro-Erap groups, but IMHO, political parties aren't that well known for their colors here in the Philippines. --Howard the Duck 02:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Party colors 

message: I guess we're being out done by ARMM's Regional Assembly - they are on a LGU-creation frenzy since they were granted the power to create new towns and provinces. COMELEC has promulgated Resolution 7801 which shows the creation of new legislative districts for the 2007 elections as well as the newest LGUs (not counting the barangays) created after the 2004 elections. Those we don't have articles are as follows:
*Sibutu, Tawi-Tawi out of Sitangkai, Tawi-Tawi ratified on October 21, 2006 by virtue of MMAA 197.
*Northern Kabuntalan , Shariff Kabunsuan (or North Kabuntalan??? another COMELEC resolution had it spelled that way ) out of Kabuntalan ratified on December 30, 2006 by virtue of MMAA 205.
*Datu Anggal Midtimbang, Maguindanao out of Talayan, Maguindanao and Talitay, Maguindanao ratified on December 30, 2006 by virtue of MMAA 206.
*Pandag, Maguindanao out of Buluan, Maguindanao ratified on December 30, 2006 by virtue of MMAA 203.
*Mangundadatu, Maguindanao (or Mangudadatu??? another COMELEC resolution had it spelled that way ) out of Buluan, Maguindanao ratified on December 30, 2006 by virtue of MMAA 204.
I suggest that articles for the new municipalities with spelling discrepancies be not created for the meantime, until they are clarified. Please refer also to 
FYI: Come the 2007 elections Zamboanga City, Sultan Kudarat, Marikina City, Zamboanga Sibugay will have two (2) congressional districts. Maguindanao and Surigao del Norte are reduced from two (2) to one (1), obviously with the creation of new provinces from them, Shariff Kabunsuan and Dinagat Islands respectively. Taguig City will have another congressional district made up of its second city council district. Its first city council district and Pateros will still comprise the Congressional district of Taguig-Pateros. — Scorpion prinz 23:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good job!  You amaze me!  Keep it up and keep the fire burning! --Ate Pinay  (talk•email) 23:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Erratum: This COMELEC Resolution 7813, amending Resolution 7801 states it did not reduce Maguindanao's and Surigao del Norte's representations - so they still have 2 representatives each. —Scorpion prinz 00:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Hay ang gulo! Daming divisions! --Weekeejames 07:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just imagine the scenario, if we already have a federal government. Ü Scorpion prinz 13:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text: In light of this, I already updated the article Legislative districts of Zamboanga City. Good for Zamboanga! Mandated naman pala ng Constitution ang legislative districts reapportions (err..for as long as the districts meet the criterias). In the case of Zamboanga City, it's long overdued. Pero yung mga divisions ng regions at provinces, towns and municipalities tas meron pang ARMM. Ang gulo. What's next? The United Regions, Provinces, Cities, Municipalities, Towns and Barangays, and States of the Federal Government of the Republic of the Philippines??? LOL! haha! --Weekeejames 09:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm seeing the ARMM having 1,000 municipalities in 10 years. Scorpion prinz 12:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New towns 

message: Our live Filipino music consultant, especially on the LH, Arnold Zamora, who goes out of his way to chat and talk live to us regarding issues on the LH in Wikipedia, is celebrating his birthday on Saturday, February 10, 2007. Incidentally, the day also marks the 15th year of his founding Chorus Paulinus, and also the launch of arnoldzamora.org in cyberspace - for the Philippines and beyond's music needs and listening pleasure.  --Ate Pinay  (talk•email) 15:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Happy b-day, AZ.  Congratulations and more power!  More power, too, to Chorus Paulinus. Many many more weddings to sing!--Ate Pinay  (talk•email) 15:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't this... spamming? --Howard the Duck 16:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope. This is acknowledging a fellow Filipino's help and contribution to Wikipedia in Tambayan Philippines because he does not have his own wiki account, but has made great contributions nevertheless. --Ate Pinay  (talk•email) 16:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So that means I can add my blog link here, too. Don't forget the campaign websites of my senatorial bets, etc., etc. We should keep Wikipedia from these kinds of advertising. --Howard the Duck 10:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please feel free to revert or delete any posting of mine that does not have a place here, Howard. It wouldn't matter. Either way, the events have taken place and the website has been launched, etc. regardless of what you and I say here. I just thought that as Filipinos, we should celebrate other Filipinos.  I apologize if I thought wrong. Besides,  we the Filipino wikipedians who have worked with AZ especially on the LH have shown our appreciation in other ways. This posting is just to include the Filipino wikipedia community in that appreciation of his significant contribution to wikipedia as a whole, esp. with the release of a lot of his works from copyrights to wikipedia. As a fellow UST alumni of his, you should have had more pride of his significant and notable accomplishments than any of us!  --Ate Pinay  (talk•email) 18:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also wonder if you subscribe to WP:AGF  at all?  -  my declaration on this is on the topmost of my talk page! --Ate Pinay  (talk•email) 19:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So might as well plug that Ginebra must lose today! It's a must! Go Beermen! (although I'm a PF fan). (You know, we should be having links to websites on the Wikipedia namespace, unless it is absolutely necessary. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promotion. And I assumed good faith since I didn't automatically delete the link.) --Howard the Duck 07:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think it is notable? There is no preventing you! But what really is the big deal anywayz??? My plug on Ejemplo  here,  this and others. were not or never questioned!  What makes the difference now?   understand! --Ate Pinay  (talk•email) 10:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no big deal, just take a look at the talk page banner ^^^. --Howard the Duck 13:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Ate Pinay, gawa ka na kasi ng Arnold Zamora article sa Chabacano Wikipedia. Tagal ko ng naghihintay na gumawa ka ng article doon. Oks lang mag mention ng websites outside Wikipedia. Di ba may external links sa mga articles? As long as relevant ang external links sa articles and done in good faith. Oks lang din mag mention ng websites sa discussion talk pages basta relevant and done, again, in good faith. Keep it cool. --Weekeejames 12:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Que tal?  Si!  Quiere yo man escribi na alli!  No hay man pareho con elle alli no?  Gracias!  Expect it and me there soonest!!!--Ate Pinay  (talk•email) 14:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Arnold Zamora]]'s Birthday  

message: Check out this image from some government-made Super Regions thing. Does the map at the right look familiar? It took me a while before I recognized it, but it's an older version of :Image:Metro manila map.png that I made. :) By the way, that image is taken from a PDF file available here. TheCoffee 05:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, for our sake, the EDSA North Transit, or ENT, was cancelled.  It seems that there is a very grave misconception about Wikipedia's "being free" in the Philippine setting: we take, but we don't give credit.  The government is giving us problems with us using their images here, but they use Wikipedia's pictures freely without credit, showing possible disregard for the license(s) used.  What an ironic world we live in.  --Sky Harbor 08:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a higher authority we can appeal to on WP? We work so hard to clean up the country's image in the international community and there go our countrymen proving that image wrong. Shrumster 10:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would love to see the Intellectual Property Office or any of the courts take action on this once and for all.  Wikipedia is too valuable for the government to ignore, especially since they are patrons of the service.  If Section 176 can be amended to be less ambiguously worded (through PI or something like that), then that would be great.  --Sky Harbor 10:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Email me through wikipedia email to get the email addresses or names of lawyers at the IPO, as well as the people in Congress, who are working with us on this!  You can lobby directly with them, too.  It will be good if there are more of us hounding on them than just a handful of us now.  They already know our issue/s. It will be good if they hear from more and more of us to hit the idea really home! --Ate Pinay  (talk•email) 18:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The recent WP decision was made by the Wiki Board.  Higher than the Board will be Jimbo Wales, who already made the decision on removal of the images a few years back. --Ate Pinay  (talk•email) 18:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Any authority higher than Jimbo himself would be the government, the only body powerful enough to make such decisions.  When the government starts to tackle this issue, then possibly we can resolve this crisis.  If Wikimedia Philippines comes to fruition (do join if you want), the first thing that I hope it will tackle is Section 176.  --Sky Harbor 01:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If we use the images first, then we can still use them here on Wikipedia. But if the images came from the Government first, then that is where we run into problems. If contacting them is not suffice, then once WMPH gets started, use whatever power and channels you have to make sure such issues are solved. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 01:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Precisely the reason why we need to lobby with Congress first. Two of them are in the know, as of now, but with the sessions over, it will be hard!  Still, we can continue to lobby so that this can be included in their agenda. Who knows one of them can go directly to GMA herself? And if our congress contact wins a seat in the Senate, then we are surely "in"!--Ate Pinay  (talk•email) 02:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

text: (Indent reset) You people do realize that there's a slim chance of Congress amending a law to suit Wikipedia. --Howard the Duck 07:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, what is new???--Ate Pinay  (talk•email) 10:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then again, there's PI and the courts.  --Sky Harbor 11:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PI? People's initiative? I even doubt that will that work. --Howard the Duck 15:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry to note your obvious loss of faith in the system. But then who wouldn't?  nood muna ng "Ejemplo"! --Ate Pinay  (talk•email) 15:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Spam again? lol. --Howard the Duck 15:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, know that "WE PEOPLE"  are doing something other than posting here in Tambayan Philippines.  User:Sky Harbor, pls email me to get the celfon numbers of our congressmen contacts which you can call directly!  Please call them, too! Anybody else is welcome to get them from me...--Ate Pinay  (talk•email) 15:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  As for contacting Congressmen, I suggest to do it after June 30 so that the 14th Congress (13th Congress is done, except PGMA needs campaign funds so she calls a special session) can accede to our "demands", and seeing they have other plans (like amending the constitution, impeachment and numerous Congressional inquiries), our "demands" will almost 100% never be met. --Howard the Duck 15:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, too late the warning...I have personally talked to two congressmen already, after contact with IPO laywers. It wouldn't hurt. They are aware now!  With some committee meetings still taking place, who knows there is still some "hope" left for now?  And yes, definitely, if not now, there is still the 14th Congress. More positive results if one congressman contact win the Senate seat! I really do not wait for things to happen. I try to make things happen!!!--Ate Pinay  (talk•email) 15:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As for acceding to our so-called demands, they are not ours per se. The congressmen contacts see them as Philippines issue. period!  and not of anyone in particular. --Ate Pinay  (talk•email) 15:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (After 3 edit conflicts) Nah, the special session would be about passing the anti-terror bill, unless some Congressman has a draft now of what to amend, make it through three readings, then pass it to the Senate and three more readings, not to mention they must be in quorum; we should either find loopholes in the old law or wait for the 14th Congress to convene. Don't expect anything from the 13th Congress to follow our "demands", or as the "issue" as you put it, not to mention there isn't beneficial to get here, for them. --Howard the Duck 15:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, i will wait and act surprised! --Ate Pinay  (talk•email) 15:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

text: User:Titopao,  you are calling the celfon number and office numbers on Monday right? --Ate Pinay  (talk•email) 15:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Checking the numbers sent to me, I am surprised that Francis Escudero is willing to back us up (presuming he wins a Senate seat).  I can ask my dad, who's running for Congressman of the legislative district of Marinduque, on the presumption he wins.  And if she's there, I'll pay a visit to the campaign headquarters of Loren Legarda down the street, also presuming she wins...lol. --Sky Harbor 14:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another map sighting 

message: Recently, someone has been adding TV ratings section (example: Magic Kamison) with dubious sources (like this). I wonder if these ratings section should be removed as these have laughable sources. I'd rather quote the tabloid directly than some blog. Also several "List of <tv program>" have proliferated and are nothing but fanboy contribs. --Howard the Duck 12:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know. I hate the ratings sections, as they reek of stupid network wars and politics that should be taken off Wikipedia (and personally, off the face of the planet). If ratings were absolutely necessary, I'd prefer them in the same format as the Friends or Seinfeld articles - directly integrated into the paragraph texts that provide proper context. Right now, as it stands, having ratings sections for every single episode of every show smells of "palakihan na XXXX". Shrumster 20:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So remove them? IMHO most of these "ratings" are referenced from a blog, a highly unreputable source. I'd rather have the direct links from the tabloid. Might be hard though, these people are persistent. --Howard the Duck 08:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, delete and salt. Blog ratings are notoriously unreliable. Much less a "tabloid blog". *shudder* Shrumster 22:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually think the tabloids are reliable source of ratings info, since they're the ones that publish them everyday, hehe --Howard the Duck 08:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TV ratings 

message: I obtained from the COMELEC several months back, election results for president, vice president, senator, house representatives, from 1946 to 1992. I had just finished uploading the breakdown of votes for President in the 1969 elections based on the material I photocopied from COMELEC. The report was actually based on the official canvass by Congress, which provides 3,043,122 as the votes obtained by Sergio Osmeña, Jr., it tallies with the breakdown I had added to the article. Please take note I haven't changed the initial total in the first part of the article which has 3,143,122. All other candidates, tallies with all available information and their breakdown. It's only Osmeña's which has a discrepancy of exactly 100,000. 
What confuses me, all online information, notably The Philippine Presidency Project, including the book ...So Help Me God, indicate 3,143,122. So I don't know how to reconcile these figures. 
FYI: According to this material I have there are 2 other vice presidential candidates in 1969, Victoriano Mallari who got a total of 229 votes and Modesto Jalandoni with 161 votes.— Scorpion prinz 17:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would there be a source in Congress to verify the correct figure? If there were, Congress would be the most reliable source because the official canvass was from them, the primary source of the figures. The discrepancy, obviously, was a typo error. --Weekeejames 12:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  1969 presidential election discrepancy 

message: Well, I would like to ask two things from the community:
*First, to move my userpages on Wikimedia Philippines to the Wikipedia namespace (under the Tambayan Philippines header)
*Second, to edit and complete the Articles of Incorporation I am presently drafting on.  Do indicate changes in the following format: (modification/change: text).
Finally, this project is now moving ahead.  It's been stagnant for a while, but I guess with the cooperation of the community, it can work!  --Sky Harbor 06:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: UPDATE: Now that we have five persons over the age of 18 to (hopefully) serve as incorporators, I can start the by-laws.  Please drop some suggestions.  --Sky Harbor 22:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wh...you mean, I was the fifth person over the age of 18? =) --- Tito Pao 22:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the following order: Corsarius, Scorpion prinz, Weekeejames, Seav and you.  So yes, you are.  --Sky Harbor 22:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Initial capital of one million pesos, hmmm. Scorpion prinz 09:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At least it's working capital.  The papers say different things: one says P100,000, the other says one million.  There are ways for us to raise a million, right?  --Sky Harbor 13:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe we can look into inviting some known philanthropist who can help us, maybe people from the Knowledge Channel or some other NGOs. —Scorpion prinz 14:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another source of funds would be philantrophic foundations and similar foundations. --- Tito Pao 22:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Don't you mean 18?  If it were 16 and above, I would be the very first and everyone would move down the list...lol.  --Sky Harbor 22:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops...I really mean 18. Sorry! Bad keyboard, bad!!! --- Tito Pao 22:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's fine, but now onto more pressing issues, like who specifically can we ask/appeal to donate funds to raise one million pesos for initial working capital?  --Sky Harbor 22:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sali na sa Deal or no deal so we can raise a million. :D --Weekeejames 08:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's have Seav play for us. Hehehehe. Then in the introduction, "the Philippine maps ABS-CBN uses are made by contributors to Wikipedia," (i've also seen Philippine Daily Inquirer use the map of Tigbao during the LPG truck explosion incident there. —Scorpion prinz 12:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, as much as I would love Seav play on Kapamilya, Deal or No Deal, is it sure-fire that we can raise one million?  As far as I'm concerned, there is a 1 in 26 chance we might come P999,999 short (winning only one peso).  But if raising capital is a risk, can someone text ABS-CBN for his participation?  --Sky Harbor 14:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we need to get our bylaws ready first so we can present something before we can commence on the fund raising. I'm thinking we also might need someone "influential" to be our face to the public. I don't know just a suggestion. —Scorpion prinz 18:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea, but I think we should finish the Articles of Incorporation first.  At least there is a sense of what will be in the by-laws.  --Sky Harbor 22:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I haven't either, but I have left a request on the Tagalog Wikipedia for those who want to help.  --Sky Harbor 14:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What I also know, there has to be an office. Tapos pag nationwide coverage na pwede nang party-list, hahaha. JK —Scorpion prinz 13:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, when we party-list, we'll represent the Philippine free-content community...lol.  I don't even know where we can have an office.  Maybe someone's house?  --Sky Harbor 22:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I think its because the page is still on incubator. Well yeah, we need a Philippine Wikimedia website. I was thinking of putting up a small review corner of the Philippine Wikipedias (our Wikis in other Philippine languages) for reviews, suggestions, recommendations and stuff like that on the tambayan page. But I think its more appropriate if it were on a Philippine Wikimedia page. --Weekeejames 18:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: By now I suppose we can!  I'll start importing pages there.  --Sky Harbor 20:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Let's join http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/philwiki/ --Exec8 22:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose, but it hasn't been active since November 2006.  And yes, the Articles of Incorporation were moved to meta. --Sky Harbor 20:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Documents 

message: Why is the pinoy wikimedia site inside a wikipedia user page? We can transfer it to Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines or any neutral location. Maybe we could request a space in the wikipedia foundation website. By the way, we need to buy www.wikimedia.ph, www.wikimedia.org.ph and wikimedia.com.ph before a squatter could get it. Remember pldt.com vs. pdlt.com.ph dispute? 
For those who just tuned in, here are the sites I could suggest to visit:
* http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Local_chapter_FAQ - How to create a Wikimedia Local Chapter?
* http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Chapters_committee - Wikimedia Local Chapters Committee
* http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Local_chapters - Wikimedia Local Chapters so far  
** http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_chapters - Wikimedia Local chapters including chapters in the planning stage
--Exec8 17:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think its because the page is still on incubator. Well yeah, we need a Philippine Wikimedia website. I was thinking of putting up a small review corner of the Philippine Wikipedias (our Wikis in other Philippine languages) for reviews, suggestions, recommendations and stuff like that on the tambayan page. But I think its more appropriate if it were on a Philippine Wikimedia page. --Weekeejames 18:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: By now I suppose we can!  I'll start importing pages there.  --Sky Harbor 20:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Let's join http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/philwiki/ --Exec8 22:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose, but it hasn't been active since November 2006.  And yes, the Articles of Incorporation were moved to meta. --Sky Harbor 20:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: By the way

message: Can the admins undelete the programs? I've seen on User talk:Centrix that someone has been tagging such programs with speedy deletion tags, on StarStruck's case it was "suspected copyright violation." Pwe, I've contributing on that page and there's no hint of copyvios perhaps on the latest edit before it was deleted.
So instead of mass speedy deletions, revert to the last uncopyvio version, or disintegrate into a one-sentence stub. --Howard the Duck 09:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's related to the banning of User:Booze broads and bullets/User:Broads for copyright infringement. The deletion log on StarStruck (Philippine TV series) says "(Created by uncooperative copyright-infringing user)" so I think all the pages he was editing heavily either got close-up scrutiny by the admins and were deleted. I think they even deleted the GMA-show template the guy created. Shrumster 15:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I've said, unless someone added a copyvio on the second-to-the-last edit, then someone tagged it with the copyvio template, the best thing to do is to revert. --Howard the Duck 06:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article on GMA Records was a copyright violation, so I had to delete that also. Pretty much, we have no problems if they are remade or redirected, just don't include the offending information (which was a copy and paste job from the GMA websites). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is the whole article really copyvios? For example, Shrumster tagged Super Twins(?) for speedy deletion (jeez, forgot already since it's deleted, too. LOL), when the simple thing to do is to remove the "Synopsis" section (or revert it, since it was the 2nd-to-the-last version before Shrumster tagged it was copyvio-free. I still question the wisdom of the deletions since they could've been simply reverted. So can I ask for them to be undeleted and I'll look for the non-copyvio revision in the article history? --Howard the Duck 08:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Probably because the editior who was banned didn't edit the articles about the ABS-CBN, so the admins did not check there. When I looked at the GMA Records, the entire lead section was cut and pasted from the "About Us" section, while the list was probably added on. That was my determination for deletion. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 17:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But it's so much simpler to revert than delete isn't it? It's not that hard. Deletion removes everything, and it's not that trivial, TV programs and recording companies are notable, no matter what side of the ocean you're on. Looking at GMA Network articles, they're all decimated, hehe. And the ABS-CBN articles are copyvios (see this for example. (On another note, ABS-CBN was said to be exterminating their videos from Youtube, Wiki could be next.)) Again, I'd appeal to undelete these and one-by-one they'll be sanitized. --Howard the Duck 17:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking around, I was surprised to see I Luv NY deleted as that had virtually no prose and full of lists, impossible to have a copyvio, unless of course the revision before it was deleted had a copyvio; also the deletion log always says in the line of "created by user with history of copyright infrigement", etc. So if we found out that the Philippines was created by a user with history of copyright infrigement, then we'd hastily speedy delete it? No way Josẽ. --Howard the Duck 17:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It claims to have gotten a 30%+ audience share? —Scorpion prinz 13:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's quite regular these days from either Kapuso or Kapamilya shows (note that I copied it verbatim from the Google archive). --Howard the Duck 14:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Simple, since blogs and message boards aren't reliable sources. If a broadsheet or even a tabloid picks this up then it should be included. --Howard the Duck 07:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[GMA Network]] programs speedy deletions 

message: Again, I'm appealing that the articles be undeleted, since TV programs are notable, and were relatively clean when I last saw them. Deleting revision histories with copyvios will do the trick. I wonder why ABS-CBN articles, which are copyvios themselves for the most part, were spared? Lol. --Howard the Duck 15:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably because the editior who was banned didn't edit the articles about the ABS-CBN, so the admins did not check there. When I looked at the GMA Records, the entire lead section was cut and pasted from the "About Us" section, while the list was probably added on. That was my determination for deletion. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 17:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But it's so much simpler to revert than delete isn't it? It's not that hard. Deletion removes everything, and it's not that trivial, TV programs and recording companies are notable, no matter what side of the ocean you're on. Looking at GMA Network articles, they're all decimated, hehe. And the ABS-CBN articles are copyvios (see this for example. (On another note, ABS-CBN was said to be exterminating their videos from Youtube, Wiki could be next.)) Again, I'd appeal to undelete these and one-by-one they'll be sanitized. --Howard the Duck 17:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking around, I was surprised to see I Luv NY deleted as that had virtually no prose and full of lists, impossible to have a copyvio, unless of course the revision before it was deleted had a copyvio; also the deletion log always says in the line of "created by user with history of copyright infrigement", etc. So if we found out that the Philippines was created by a user with history of copyright infrigement, then we'd hastily speedy delete it? No way Josẽ. --Howard the Duck 17:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It claims to have gotten a 30%+ audience share? —Scorpion prinz 13:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's quite regular these days from either Kapuso or Kapamilya shows (note that I copied it verbatim from the Google archive). --Howard the Duck 14:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Appeal

message: Hi. I re-created the Super Twins article. I made sure that there's no copyright violation in it. I also made it NPOV. Danngarcia and Howard the Duck also made contributions to it.
I just have a question. Why is the Controversy section removed for being "laughable"? I also agree that they are funny, but they also made their points about the alleged Sailor Moon rip-off. Anyway, I did not put them there to prove that they are right. I put them there to substantiate the existence of the controversy and to indicate what exactly are their allegations for calling the show a Sailor Moon rip-off. GMA Network itself admitted the existence of the controversy in an interview and then defended their own show anyway, which I also put up. Perryv 04:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Simple, since blogs and message boards aren't reliable sources. If a broadsheet or even a tabloid picks this up then it should be included. --Howard the Duck 07:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Re-creation of deleted [[GMA Network]] programs

message: Wikipedia is now being used as a campaign tool by Filipino politicians running for office. The Philippine Daily Inquirer has just featured it. . I guess we can watch their biographies to make sure they remain neutral, lest people be maligned. Scorpion prinz 09:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey at least articles are created about real people, unlike some never heard teen wanna-be actress. --Howard the Duck 09:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about creating categories for Filipino never heard teen wanna-be actors and actresses? Hahahaha Scorpion prinz 09:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then we'd be having a wannabe category? lol --Howard the Duck 10:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I saw that article. The only thing that article really says is that candidates have articles, and everyone knows that. They're just implying without real evidence that Wikipedia is being used as a campaign tool. Anyone that knows Wikipedia can tell that candidates' articles being "updated as recently as February 12" is not newsworthy. But anyway, keep on the lookout for POV edits. TheCoffee 10:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As personal practice, I communicated with the politician's office after the fact to request for free images. I also added a caution on self-editing and the controversy on congressional and/or senatorial edits which has gained media attention in the U.S. as contained here  and  here! --Ate Pinay  (talk•email) 10:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: No, unless the article gets really nasty then we can request for protection. --Howard the Duck 11:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In line with that, you should check out Sergio Osmeña III that one got vandalised. I'm for protection of politician's profiles from unregistered users. —Scorpion prinz 13:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Simple reversion + warnings will do the trick for one-time vandals, if its like everyday (like on Cueshe, then semi-protection would be used. --Howard the Duck 15:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the fact that they're running a candidate for senator running a national campaign makes them notable enough to have an article (at least the 24 dudes running for senator with the admin and opposition). If you find POV edits, they can be reverted or 'neutralized'.TheCoffee 04:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And I don't think that'll fly in an AFD, although I'll gladly support it. --Howard the Duck 04:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's be vigilant... 

message: Retroactively, that is, since he died before Cory became President... Uthanc 13:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think so. It isn't a title or a citation that can be conferred posthumously. —Scorpion prinz 14:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know, maybe no since technically he wasn't Cory's husband when Cory became president, since the marriage vows are "...until death to us part". Dunno about other religions (but it doesn't matter anyway since all presidents were Christian). --Howard the Duck 15:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: AFAIK, the title First Lady/First Gentleman was never considered a formal office like, say, Chief of Staff or Executive Secretary, and as far as it goes it's just a moniker. --- Tito Pao 15:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True. Scorpion prinz 06:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Good point, Chris. I was about to raise that up. I think another Philippine president was in the same situation (was it Quirino?), so the daughter filled up what would be considered as First Lady "duties". For Pres. Aquino, I'm not sure who played a similar role. --- Tito Pao 13:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For Cory, FVR tabako, was the first gentleman. HaHaHa! Now that is a joke. I was in High School when Cory was our president. There was NO first gentleman. Cory did all the tricks. =) --Weekeejames 08:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can [[Benigno Aquino, Jr.|Ninoy]] be considered a First Gentleman? 

message: This article has been the object of a lot of edits by anon and new editors.  These new and anon editors have persistently included statements that are not cited,  or if they are, these are improperly cited, are against WP:NPOV and WP:BLP.  Until such anons subscribe to these policies,  this article will be the object of unscrupulous edits which will be harmful to the subject and his current political career in the Philippines.  Hence, the urgency and importance of protection.--Ate Pinay  (talk•email) 15:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Article has been tagged protected 02/16/07  by User:Arjun01. --Ate Pinay  (talk•email) 15:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Full disclosure: I was the one responsible for the protection request. I'll be posting more information on the article's talk page for more information on what led to the request (if you can't read it, then definitely I'm still writing it), and on other issues that can be expected and need to be addressed once a consensus has been reached for requesting unprotection. --- Tito Pao 18:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  request protection of [[Francis Escudero]] 

message: Just thought of letting the tambays know: I noticed (through the main WP:TAMBAY project page) that the Maria Flordeluna article was apparently speedied even though it is currently airing. The rationale given was that it was a copyvio page. So now, we're in a position where the images of the now-deleted article are also orphaned because of this, on top of the IfD nomination for improper fair use licensing. --- Tito Pao 18:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't worry, somone recreated the article, albeit without the images. They'll be readded once again later and will be reuploaded when the images are deleted (sigh). --Howard the Duck 06:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re [[Maria Flordeluna]] article and IfD 

message: This is to announce with great honor and pride the launch of the Bohol Portal in the English Wikipedia. --Ate Pinay  (talk•email) 22:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Congrats. Sometimes (or actually oftentimes), I get confused with portals and wikiprojects as far as the purposes of their existences are concerned. They seem to be overlapping each other. Wikipedia should have a committee of sorts in approving which portals or projects need to be created or not (with the consensus of wikipedians) just like the way we start a wikipedia in a language other than English. --Weekeejames 08:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hola! Que tal? Well, to me, IMHO, the wikiprojects are BIGGER IN SCOPE i guess with admins di ba?  While the portal/s  is just like an index or like a table of contents, a one-stop shop for topics of about the same idea or under the same umbrella.  I don't know if  tama ako, but with the Bohol Portal,  it is not a wikiproject and very far from it. There are no management or admin people involved.Portal nga lang sa everything about Bohol. tama ba? Comments na lang kayo... --Ate Pinay  (talk•email) 18:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Portal: Bohol]] 

message: While working on an article about the Climate of the Philippines (on the Dutch Wikipedia) I was thinking that a nice map showing the distribution of rainfall (see : the map on this page would be very informative. I am hoping that somebody here is able to create a map for use on wikipedia. Magalhães 12:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Add that to requested images in WP:PINOY, but the faster way to do that would be to leave a message in the talk page of the Filipino Wiki Graphic Artists...or try the user who helped me with the Bohol Portal. He is good!  --Ate Pinay  (talk•email) 17:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't see a map. --Howard the Duck 04:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Click the climate thingy on the left side and voila... the map. —Scorpion prinz 10:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee...  Now we need an article about Climate of the Philippines and improvement on the map. --Howard the Duck 12:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I really wanna make sophisticated maps, is there a particular SW being used?, we need to update the political divisions. We also might need blank template maps for the provinces. —Scorpion prinz 07:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Howard! Magalhães 22:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map of rainfall in the Philippines 

message: I'm suspiciously thinking that this page is a copyvio. Can anyone confirm? (BTW, this page has been linked from most of the northern Luzon provinces. I'll try reverting when I have the time.) --seav 13:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually think this is some thesis or something... --Howard the Duck 14:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In addition, the article was created by Chris S.'s "best friend" User:Ferandre. --Howard the Duck 14:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All the capitalization is burning my eyes! It does seem plagy. Oh well, if it is a thesis, it should be easy to revert/kill offending parts based on WP:NOR, as a thesis by definition is OR. :) Shrumster 16:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[History of Isabela Province]] 

message: Based on new information at the Wikipedia Community Portal, the no original research policy and the verifiability policy are now merged together and superseded by a new official policy, the attribution policy (as of this weekend). 
Btw: shortcuts for the new policy are:
*WP:ATT
*WP:ATTRIBUTION
*WP:SOURCE
The old shortcuts for WP:NOR and WP:V still work, but will lead to their corresponding sub-sections w/in WP:ATT. Please take note of this when referring to policy (especially when leaving user warnings on user talk pages). Since these two oft-quoted policies are now merged, WP:ATT does a better job by killing two birds with one stone, so to speak ;-)  Thanks. --- Tito Pao 14:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Titopao, thank you for these updates. We ought to remember these changes. --Ate Pinay  (talk•email) 11:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lol, and I thought WP couldn't get any more...anal? Well, at least the distinction between primary and secondary sources are clearer. We do have a serious problem with a lot of beginning editors doing OR, and a lot more not citing sources at all, so I guess these changes are for the better. Shrumster 16:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:NOR]] and [[WP:V]] superseded by [[WP:ATT|new policy]] 

message: I was reading the newspaper today (PhilStar Feb 22) when I saw a political ad that seems to use this picture for its background. I scanned this photo from an EDSA book and included it in Wikipedia under fair use conditions. It seems that the designers of the political ad used this exact same picture because the original photo was much larger (I cropped it) and the same cropped image was used in the political ad (with some photoshopping done to extend the picture). It's arguable that our use of the copyrighted picture is under fair use, but the political group's (ALADYN) use of the photo is definitely an infringement. It's bad enough that people use our own original images, but it's even worse that they're using non-Wikipedian's works! --seav 12:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So what will be the action plan? —Scorpion prinz 12:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Man, that sucks. The photo is stunning, though. If it wasn't copyrighted it could've been an FP candidate. --Howard the Duck 14:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if the image (the version right now) were taken by a Wikipedian, it won't pass FP. The criteria is quite stringent (e.g., picture must be at least 1000px in width or height, no visible JPEG artifacts, etc.). The photo fails both of the sample criteria. The photo is purposely of low quality so that the fair use rationale is better. --seav 14:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thry actually lower standards for historical photos, that's why it can be an FP candidate, though FP is a longshot. --Howard the Duck 01:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't know if there's anything we can do about it. We don't own the copyright to that photo, so we can't press charges or anything. --seav 14:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not just maps, but even pics are infringed 

message: I'm not asking for us to work on the article to get it to featured status. I'm just asking for your help to at least make the article worthy enough so that people in the Philippines, who look up for information on her so they can decide whether they want to vote for her or not, can have a solid reference. Please, let us do our part in promoting the good candidates in this election. She needs all the help she can get in campaigning compared to the other candidates. ^_^ Berserkerz Crit 18:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We can write about anyone, but promoting candidates per se? In as much as we want the good ones to be elected into office, we may have differring opinion about every candidate. I guess we should all stay neutral about the elections, present everything in an equal perspective. —Scorpion prinz 01:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not saying make her article smell sweeter or more visible than other candidate's wiki pages. I'm saying, here's a good candidate for the Senate unlike her counterparts, who needs help getting elected, who is qualified, who we need to create a solid informative article on her so that people who look up on her to decide whether to vote for her or not can have a reference. People have always been saying, they're all the same, trapo silang lahat, and when a genuine candidate appears, we don't vote for him/her or do anything to help them get voted (much like what happened to Raul Roco). I'm not advocating bias and weasel words in Sonia Roco's article, I'm just asking for help in making the article better. Berserkerz Crit 10:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Gather round folks let's collaborate on [[Sonia Roco]]

message: Look at the verbatim of this article by the DILG's Local Government Academy, about Shariff Kabunsuan and compare it to the one we have here in wikipedia for Shariff Kabunsuan. Much like this one for Dinagat Islands. —Scorpion prinz 03:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And they say Wikipedia is a bad reference tool hehehe. --Howard the Duck 04:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Try to compare 

message: Any admins in the haus? Paki delete yung project page ng http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tambayan_De_Los_Chavacanos at talk page nyan. I accidentally created it over here when I was supposed to do it over cbk-zam wikipedia. With so many windows opened, di ko namalayan I was in the en wikipedia while doing the community page for cbk. Also, uunahin ko na. I copied the layout of the en tambayan page sa cbk-zam pero I changed the contents, the language and colours naman. I hope that's alright and you won't all sue me for copyright infringement. LOL!  http://cbk-zam.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tambayan_De_Los_Chavacanos  --Weekeejames 09:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can tag it with  to speedily delete it. --Howard the Duck 10:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: thanks --Weekeejames 11:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  request to delete 

message: Just a heads-up: a user, User:Loumag, has introduced herself as the daughter of Vicente Magsaysay after raising concerns about why her edits to the article were deleted (apparently, for copyvio concerns). I left a note on her talk page, explaining why it's not OK to cut and paste contents into WP and also giving her some links to policies and guidelines (NPOV among them). Her initial reaction to my comments was---how do I put it?---not exactly warm, so I'm trying to address her concerns as positively as I can. --- Tito Pao 08:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Loumag]] and the [[Vicente Magsaysay]] article 

message: Can someone remove the redirect of the Regular Batasang Pambansa from the Batasang Pambansa? —Scorpion prinz 11:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What's wrong with the redirect? Try WP:CSD, the one with db:redirect template not sure on the exact link. =) Berserkerz Crit 10:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Regular Batasang Pambansa should refer to the session of the Batasang Pambansa from 1984 to 1986. Batasang Pambansa is the legislative body itself or the structural complex. —Scorpion prinz 11:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So what do you propose? Do you want me to speedy delete tag it or blank it or what? Do you want to write an article for that page? Berserkerz Crit 15:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can someone just write a stub for that? That's the only modern legislature which doesn't have an article. --Howard the Duck 15:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't it be undone? (pretty please?) I'm actually gearing up to write about the Regular Batasang Pambansa (I already have the time), I have the list of its members per district and party, session dates, laws passed. I really believe there should be 2 separate articles for that. I'm gonna complete all the other legislatures, including the Japanese era national assembly - I gotta do something fruitful before I leave my beloved homeland. I can't certainly bring all these materials there. —Scorpion prinz 16:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can actually convert the redirect into a real article, though. --Howard the Duck 16:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Me thinks Scorpion does not know how to override redirects. Well, I've made the redirect into a stub. Do your magic Scorpion. Berserkerz Crit 17:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Me really don't know. =P —Scorpion prinz 15:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I'll work on them Ü. —Scorpion prinz 12:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove redirect of [[Regular Batasang Pambansa]]

message: Please provide an accurate account on House members serving the 11th and 12th congress. It shows that Matias Defensor was the QC 3rd Dist. congressman. Isn't it Mike Defensor (11th) and Maite Defensor (12th)? Chuck Mathay for the 11th for the 2nd dist. of QC. I don't know for other members of congress. --Exec8 22:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll work on them Ü. —Scorpion prinz 12:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 11th and 12th Congress of the Philippines

message: This isn't exactly related to any Philippine-related article, but since some of us here have raised concerns about potential vandals and unsourced statements on biographies of living persons (especially of those who are running for public office), there is an interesting case (reported at the Signpost) of someone actually suing some people because of an edit on Wikipedia:
*Pro golfer sues over libelous statements
Hope this helps...mabuti na po ang nag-iingat. Thanks --- Tito Pao 12:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:BLP|BLP]]-related lawsuit on WP 

message: I nominated the article for GA seeing it covers the subject comprehensively and is well-referenced. If you can improve the article further, please do! =) Berserkerz Crit 18:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jose Rizal is now promoted to GA! Cheers! Berserkerz Crit 19:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[José Rizal]] a GA candidate

message: The article Kulintang is currently a good article nominee.
For background, kulintang music is the highest form of gong music ever attained by Filipinos. Becuase this musical genre also predates the influence of the West, Christianity and Islam, it is the closest example of how Filipinos lived prior to the lands of Magellan and Sharif Makdum in the central and south of the Philippines.
The article is currently under peer review so if you believe you have any ideas for improving it, level them here. Any ideas will be appreciated. Thanks - PhilipDM 21:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Kulintang]] a GA candidate 

message: Talk:Portal:Bohol->Portal talk:Bohol. Thanks. --Howard the Duck 04:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --Chris S. 05:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: Please help. In the University Belt article, the link of Arellano University leads to the biography of Cayetano Arellano where I believe the university got its name but still it is not a university article. Anybody knows how to fix it? thanks a lot! Fddfred 07:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an instance where I'd recommend to delete the redirect, unless someone can come up with an article... --Howard the Duck 07:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Stubified. Not really my thing, and this is honestly the first time I've ever heard of the place, so I can't really expand on it. Shrumster 08:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Madamo gid nga salamat! Fddfred 09:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  University Belt 

message: I noticed just now that the red is on the left side and blue is on the right side. When the Philippine flag is displayed vertically, the blue should be on the left and the red on the right. Hope someone could switch the colors. =) Berserkerz Crit 12:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a simple flip would do the trick, not sure though, I'm bad at photo-editing software. --Howard the Duck 13:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: BUMP! Calling out technical people or artists!! We have to follow Philippine flag protocols. =( Berserkerz Crit 19:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If we were at a state of war, this would be correct. But, I will flip it now. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah now that's more like it. Good job as always scout! Berserkerz Crit 20:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Welcome. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 21:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yey! —Scorpion prinz 04:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Re Philippine Barnstar

message: I keep on including 1919, 1922, 1925, 1928, 1931 elections in the template. It's always being removed... If we don't have the dates for those elections, as User:Rizalninoynapoleon noted why he always removes it, does it erase the fact that elections were held in those years? If we don't have the exact dates, doesn't it pose a challenge for us to go research? The National Library isn't really the most ideal place to research but it's the best we can do...or perhaps try the Congressional Library at the Batasan Complex. I had to revert it to include those years. —Scorpion prinz 15:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That guy doesn't even cooperate or respond to my posts at his talk page. Good luck. --Howard the Duck 04:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Good source: Comelec Library. Too difficult to look elections in the 1940s and 1950s but at least there are new things to see like senatorial elections in the mid 1950s to 1992. Kindly provide us a complete senatorial tally (even loosers) from 1995 to 2001. --Exec8 22:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: COMELEC doesn't have election records prior to 1946. They were only established 1940, so other elections prior to that year must be researched at the National Library/Congressional Library (at least the latter is airconditioned, you may bring your notebook its a wifi zone). —Scorpion prinz 06:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:Philippine elections]] 

message: Looks like now we need to be vigilant on Kamuning MRT Station.  As much as I understand that Timog is a gay hotspot in Quezon City (according to the article), I don't think the article should reflect that.  The article has been reverted four times in the past few weeks, and the last case of related (or even identical) vandalism was yesterday.  --Sky Harbor 23:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After reading the stub, the whole GMA/ABS-CBN thing is entirely unnecessary as well. Well, it's important to mention GMA, as the station is referred to as GMA-Kamuning station, but that's about that. Shrumster 14:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the ABS-CBN thingy but it seems that there should be at least a mention of the "gayness" of this place, IMHO (like the one at Malate, Manila). --Howard the Duck 15:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then again, it's mentioned in the Timog section of the Quezon City article.  For what I really meant (which is obviously more disturbing), check the history.  --Sky Harbor 20:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That was nasty (lol), but I think that was just some random vandal, might be wrong though. --Howard the Duck 08:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  MRT vandalism 

message: Is there anyone willing to update this map? :Image:Ph_regions_and_provinces2.png  I tried doing it myself, but it is not looking right.  What it needs:
#Changing MIMAROPA to MIMARO
#Changing Palawan's shading to Western Visayas shading.
#New province, Dinagat Islands.
Hurm, is that it? And also since some cities are independent (Zamboanga, Davao & Baguio), should they have their own shading? Just a thought. --Chris S. 03:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We can use the original :Image:Ph_regions_and_provinces.png and update that and delete this, though. --Howard the Duck 03:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, whichever one would be fine. Hmmm.. Or perhaps the one you just found is perfect since Shariff Kabunsuan is not on it.  The font used for Shariff Kabunsuan is different and thus it's kind of bugging me. ;-) --Chris S. 06:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the new image was done hastily. --Howard the Duck 07:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In short ang pangit ng pagkakagawa? kidding...hehehe. Somebody has to convince TheCoffee to work on it. —Scorpion prinz 14:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for a Map Update 

message: I don't know how many of you have heard of this, but since this involves one of the most visible personalities on WP: Essjay has resigned from the Wikipedia (or "retired" per his user page) and has had all his privileges (admin, steward, bureaucrat and even the sub-pages of his user page) removed/deleted. It'll take me a lot to explain what happened, but the RFC page about him explains the situation better. Opinions about him and on the issue is heavily divided, as seen on the contents of the RFC and his user talk page. --- Tito Pao 07:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oooooooooh. This is showbizzer than The Buzz, lol. Haven't encountered him anyway that much. --Howard the Duck 08:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As one who sat in on the IRC debates about Essjay, I would suggest to not add fuel to the fire. Everything that should be said has been said and everything that wishes to be done has been done. There is nothing much what we can do for now. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 08:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text: He helped me out on the help desk a long time ago, and I gave him my enthusiastic vote of support at his RFA. It's too bad to see him go out dishonorably like this. TheCoffee 09:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow what a topic. He might become or already is a meme or internet phenomenon. Berserkerz Crit 10:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like I will need to read this.  It seems very important.  --Sky Harbor 12:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was equally saddened to see him go like this. I've learned a lot by reading his posts and his edits. It's good to know, however, that despite what happened in this incident, some users have still showed their support for Essjay. He will be surely missed. --- Tito Pao 14:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes me realize that when anyone can edit just about anything, credibily is always at stake, and yes what a weird weird world Wikipedia is. Just my two cents on this, I think Jimbo Wales did the right thing in asking Essjay to leave, and I think Essjay was courageous and humble enough to walk away. --Weekeejames 14:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text: He facilitated my change of username and I worked with him during the Board elections as part of translation efforts from English to Tagalog.  What do we do now?  What happened to him I can compare to the "dot and circle" theory we learned in Filipino class.  --Sky Harbor 20:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Life goes on in Wikiland, I think, although some valid concerns were raised in the light of this incident. As ZScout has mentioned, the case has already rested (and, IMO, in such an extremely short time), and even Jimbo himself has urged everyone to move on. Tuloy lang ang buhay, ika nga. There were some proposals as a result of these, but that deserves another topic of its own. --- Tito Pao 21:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Essjay|Essjay]] leaves the Wikipedia 

message: here? --Howard the Duck 08:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah. I would suggest to archive the discussions based either biweekly or monthly. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 09:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we use Werdnabot 

message: If it interests you, I got this uploaded in youtube. . —Scorpion prinz 21:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Lupang Hinirang]] video