Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines/Archive 12

message: *WikiPilipinas Just so you guys should know, someone already started an article. We might want to chip in so that the article meets *ahem* Wikipedia standards. :) Shrumster 16:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * :D Shrumster 05:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * Been fixing the article. Feel free to chip in if you guys find any ideas. Not sure how it should go, never worked on an article about a content-provider web service before. Shrumster 08:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow. Now I'm a Wikipedia source. Hehehe. --seav 16:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although Wikipedia frowns upon blogs as a whole as sources, since most, if not virtually all of the commentary has been in the Philippine blogosphere, and since the majority of the blogs involved are from prominent and/or influential bloggers, I think we can let this one pass.  --Sky Harbor 01:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia article

message: *Just wondering, would the new article (recently expanded within the last 5 days) pass for a WP:DYK? On a less-selfish note, it'd be an interesting start for a Philippine-related DYK. On a selfish note, that'd up its pagerank. ;) No idea how the DYK system works though. Anyone? :D Shrumster 08:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it was a stub 5 days ago, then it's legit. --Howard the Duck 12:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, might not pass. I nominated it anyway. *crosses fingers* Shrumster 17:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yey, it made it! Shrumster 16:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: DYK?

message: The following three images are under IFD which to me (and possibly to you too) are significant:
*Image:EDSA_Revolution_pic1.jpg (2-3 million people on EDSA during the 1986 EDSA Revolution)
*Image:Shot_Dead_on_Arrival.JPG (Assassination of Benigno Aquino, Jr. upon arrival)
*Image:Sin2001.jpg (Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo's inauguration during the EDSA Revolution of 2001, the basis for the reverse of the 200-peso bill)
All were nominated on the same date by the same person.  Their fair use rationales seem valid, and I believe they're all important in the contexts of their articles.  What do you all think?  (By the way, may I please have an admin restore the five bank logos I mentioned above?) --Sky Harbor 04:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely important. I suggest we start looking around and re-tagging our historic images with the historic image template. I have a feeling that's what caught his attention in the first place, that some of the original images used the generic "fair use" tag. Shrumster 09:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

text: the nominator is probably a nazi =/ who doesnt understand the significance of our edsa revolt †Bloodpack† 05:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Here you are: :Image:Php bill 200 back.jpg.  --Sky Harbor 11:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool! Thanks! Shrumster 11:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm thinking though. Kahit ano mangyari, bayaan na lang natin. Sayang lang oras natin kung papatulan natin yang mga ganyan. Pwede naman ibalik yung mga litrato nga mey mas-angkop na mga rasyonal na hindi makakaakit ng pansin sa mga katulad niyang mga mambubura. Might be better for us to refocus our energies on working on the betterment of articles instead of fighting battles that the general public, who WP is really for, won't really see anyway. But then again, in my short lifetime as a Wikieditor, I've become extremely jaded with their lawyeristic processes especially when dealing with editors with conflicting agendas. I just hope that the results of these IfDs don't discourage any current editors/potential editors within our Wikimmunity. Shrumster 11:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ilagay na lang yan sa wikipilipinas nang sila ang makasuhan >:p --Howard the Duck 12:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I apologize for my outburst earlier. Tama ka Shrumster, antayin na lang natin ang resulta. Me araw din ang mga yan. My outburst gave some positive things though. It gave me enough energy to create an image quickly, (but not pretty enough)--Lenticel (talk) 13:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

text: He has demonstrated unwillingness to deal with others in the past (for which he was "counselled" by Arbcom). I just hope that the closing admin will be of sound mind and fair judgement. Howard's suggestion doesn't seem bad to me. I've recently been hitting some "walls" while editing WP...some of the pitfalls with being an "expert" having to defend edits from "non-experts." Nakakaburat these days. Not sure about the rest of you but I'm willing to take a LoA as I'm almost done with my current pet article anyway. I hate Wikibureaucracy. :( Shrumster 15:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Lol, just realized...we can always turn to Wikipilipinas. :)) Sure, it doesn't have WP's oversight, but if all of us combine our wikiality, I'm sure the articles we choose to deal with will be brought up to at least Wikipedia standards. Just a failsafe measure. Shrumster 17:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: as per WP:CIVIL, please accept my apology for using that unnecessary remark (nazi) †Bloodpack† 23:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure! --Abu badali (talk) 23:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: At the end of the day, it's not your interpretation that matters, it's how the closing admin will look it at it. S/he'll also take into account the possibility on acquiring free alternatives, since an article of such importance certainly needs a photograph to illustrate what happened. --Howard the Duck 00:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You said "...an article of such importance certainly needs a photograph to illustrate what happened"... I believe this is the source of the misunderstanding that led to some of you taking offense with the nominations. Either or not and article needs a photograph to illustrate some event has nothing to do with the importance of the event. That's what I tried to explain (in bold letters) above. --Abu badali (talk) 17:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Images under IFD that are significant to their contexts

message: We all take a leave of absence from WP if all 3 are deleted? --Howard the Duck 07:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He has demonstrated unwillingness to deal with others in the past (for which he was "counselled" by Arbcom). I just hope that the closing admin will be of sound mind and fair judgement. Howard's suggestion doesn't seem bad to me. I've recently been hitting some "walls" while editing WP...some of the pitfalls with being an "expert" having to defend edits from "non-experts." Nakakaburat these days. Not sure about the rest of you but I'm willing to take a LoA as I'm almost done with my current pet article anyway. I hate Wikibureaucracy. :( Shrumster 15:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Lol, just realized...we can always turn to Wikipilipinas. :)) Sure, it doesn't have WP's oversight, but if all of us combine our wikiality, I'm sure the articles we choose to deal with will be brought up to at least Wikipedia standards. Just a failsafe measure. Shrumster 17:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: as per WP:CIVIL, please accept my apology for using that unnecessary remark (nazi) †Bloodpack† 23:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure! --Abu badali (talk) 23:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: At the end of the day, it's not your interpretation that matters, it's how the closing admin will look it at it. S/he'll also take into account the possibility on acquiring free alternatives, since an article of such importance certainly needs a photograph to illustrate what happened. --Howard the Duck 00:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You said "...an article of such importance certainly needs a photograph to illustrate what happened"... I believe this is the source of the misunderstanding that led to some of you taking offense with the nominations. Either or not and article needs a photograph to illustrate some event has nothing to do with the importance of the event. That's what I tried to explain (in bold letters) above. --Abu badali (talk) 17:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What if

message: I've been checking out the policy pages and various talk pages about this contentious topic of keeping/deleting many images that included under the claim of fair-use. E.g., see WP:NONFREE, WP:FUC, and Wikipedia talk:Publicity photos (this latter page is very, very enlightening). I actually get the point of Abu badali and other deletionists. But I disagree on their manner of strictness. Actually, I disagree on Wikipedia's policy of strictness on fair use that is more strict than is required by U.S. copyright law. I view Wikipedia as an encyclopedia first and as a repository of freely-licensed knowledge second. As long as any non-free image can be added to Wikipedia's articles reasonably under fair use, I would press for their inclusion. While these images can't be used by downstream users (unless they can prove that their use is fair use too, or they manage to get a license/permission from the copyright holder), if including them can enhance Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, then why not include them? After all, I believe that at least 90% of the use of Wikipedia content will come from actually viewing Wikipedia on the Web. --seav 18:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's because they eventually want the option to sell this stuff on a CD/DVD or something like that. That's why they don't like "wikipedia-only" licenses or "permission by author to post image on wikipedia" licenses. I'm actually running into a lot of fair-use problems with images for one of my other thrusts (besides biological articles) on WP, which is Warhammer 40,000. As a miniatures game where the minis are sculpted and sold by their parent company, Games Workshop, it is therefore impossible to have a free image of anything depicting their work. They have a very detailed disclaimer on their website about their intellectual property and even if you just make a drawing of one of the minis, they still assert ownership to the copyright of the image in the drawing. Messy stuff like that. Having said all that though, these images we are dealing with aren't mere images that are owned by a particular company to sell for profit; they're significant historic images that free or non-free, have been reprinted in countless magazines, newspapers, coffee table and history books. For Wikipedia not to have such pics even though it legally *can* would just be...petty and legalistic. As you guys might have already noticed, for a Filipino editor I have very few edits to Philippine-related articles. It's not that I try to stay away from them or anything, I just don't find myself attracted to anything connected to our country on WP. But I do recognize the importance and significance of these images in portraying the event that they are about, as important as having the copyrighted box art for an article about a video game or a logo of a company that an article is about. Shrumster 19:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A thought

message: Everyone, please brush up on your intellectual property knowledge especially on Fair use. We are not lawyers but some of your comments are not helping. Note that infringing use of a photo or illustration to depict or illustrate something is unlikely to be declared fair use. This means that you cannot use a copyrighted painting of a rose to illustrate an article on roses. But if you're using that copyrighted painting to illustrate the painter's technique or to talk about the painting itself, these infringing uses are likely to be considered fair use by courts.
In Wikipedia, we can't use just any copyrighted photo to illustrate or depict events. These photos have to be highly significant for them to be included in their corresponding articles. Significance is what we're arguing for. --seav 04:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uhhh which is what I'm fighting for. I even changed the Significance rationale under the first IfD pic to better illustrate that point. I know fair use images are not for mere identification. That is why I find the IfD laughable and a farce. Of all the fair use images in Wikipedia those three would be one of the last that would not add encyclopedic and educational content to the articles. Berserkerz Crit 10:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be noted though that the significance (or notability) of something is still subjective.  Remember the AFD on Quezon Avenue MRT Station?  However, all of the above comments are true that we have to understand and discern properly fair use doctrine (both U.S. and Philippine) so we can avoid these conflicts.  --Sky Harbor 11:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Please brush up on your IP knowledge

message: The IFDs for the three images are over guys. Image:Shot_Dead_on_Arrival.JPG and Image:EDSA_Revolution_pic1.jpg were kept while Image:Sin2001.jpg was deleted. I guess it was an ok result as the last one still remains in recent memory (6 years). Hehe, some of us may even actually have a low-res version of that very scene (I believe I have it on DV-8 tape. Now if only I had a working player...:()so it's easier to find an alternative to that one. Glad the others were kept as being around 20 years old and before the digital revolution, pics of those are impossibly hard to come by. Shrumster 11:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: EDSA would be my vote for the first one (although both would be excellent). I mean, as an event that put the country on the modern world map, it definitely deserves a FA treatment. Shrumster 19:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And since there are more than a dozen books written about EDSA, references should not be hard to come by ;-) --- Tito Pao 20:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: IFDs over

message: I have some stupid questions, which have probably been answered at some point in the discussions here and during the first meet-up. I think I better ask them now than during the meet-up. Other people will probably be asking the same questions.
* What is the mission/vision of WMPH?
* Why do we need WMPH to reach this vision?
* Why do we need a legal entity (WMPH with its by-laws, officers, SEC registration, etc) to achieve this vision?
 
(Let me also act as the devil’s advocate here) I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with this effort; it is just that creating and maintaining a foundation entails a lot of time and effort. I think it would be best to make sure we know where we are aiming for before we invest part of our lives in this. My assumption in planning to support WMPH is that it will follow the mission statement of Wikimedia Foundation:
In my opinion, taking into consideration our situation here in the Philippines, “empowering and engaging people to create educational content” means educating as many people as possible on why they should and how they could contribute content in Wikipedia. As you may know in a proposal I had (I think a year ago), I think the fastest way to do this is to work with educational institutions or individual teachers to use contribution to Wikipedia (not only reading Wikipedia) to educate their students, as has been done in other parts of the world. I guess the WMPH legal entity would help in formally approaching schools and if ever we get to the point of getting donations (you can use a nice letter and a smile (or good contacts) for approaching schools, but a legal entity is probably needed (I’m not a lawyer) for any financial transaction). Which brings me to the section below. Perhaps we could figure out a win-win collaboration with WikiPhilippines to help us achieve our mission and help them achieve their mission as well.--Nino Gonzales 05:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Why?

message: Here’s how I see it. However passionate we are about Wikipedia, all of us are volunteers with full-time jobs (or schoolwork). Wpinas, however, will (most likely) monetize the eventual eyeballs on their site. This is their full time job. And being led by Gus Vibal, who is apparently connected with Vibal publishers, one of the largest textbook publishers in this country, Wpinas has existing connections with educational institutions, the most important thing you need to make something happen in this country. Perhaps we could work out a collaboration to help all of us come closer to our visions. If you really want to set up a foundation, I suggest we offer to make Vibal one of the board of directors (I know of two other industry leaders who are passionate about Wiki and education. One is Tech entrepreneur and the other has been leading educational institutions for quite some time). In my opinion, however, we could promote Wikipedia for education (if this is what we want to achieve) without a legal entity. An informal thing would take less work and would probably serve the same purpose. But that’s just me.--Nino Gonzales 05:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have actually been thinking along the same lines as well. Right now, I don't see any urgent need to put up a foundation especially since most of us have no experience doing so. I eventually think that there will be a foundation but not right now. I particularly want to explore possible collaboration options with Filipiniana.net. I think this should be one of the major topics of the meet-up. --seav 06:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, similar sentiment here. While a foundation would be great, I honestly think we need more people. i.e. we need to mentor/train more Filipino Wikipedians in the art of...well, building an encyclopedia. The sudden appearance of WPinas may be a blessing in disguise as the "pinoy pop-culture" and "chismis"-oriented ones will be attracted there while (I hope) the serious editors will stick around here. Honestly, I'm not sure WPinas will really want anything to do with us (except pirate us) as Wikipedians, as they do seem to be headed for the profit direction. Shrumster 06:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know anymore; are you implying that WMPH as it stands is not viable?  --Sky Harbor 07:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we did get to have the AoI approved so that counts for something. But I guess I don't think that just because there is actually an existing foundation that we can advance Wikimedia's vision in the Philippines at a level of activity better than we're doing now. Some of the more important things I think--like producing high-quality encyclopedic content (and textbooks, etc.)--can be done without any foundation. We need to prove first that Filipino Wikimedia volunteers (not just on the English Wikipedia) can collaborate on building Wikimedia projects online before we go publicizing and promoting offline. --seav 07:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm sure it is viable. But I don't think it is a question of viability. If we are to start a foundation, it will probably be you, Sky Harbor, being the most passionate about this, who will do most of the work. But think, what will bring us closer to our goals faster: using your time with the bureaucracy of starting a foundation or using that same amount of time to write and edit Wikipedia? I'm currently involved with an NGO and, man, it requires a lot of work, and I don't even handle the foundation stuff. But that's just my opinion, and it's your time. --Nino Gonzales 04:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Frankly, I'm just a kid.  But still, I do agree that we can organize, just at a later date.  I'd rather see everything get approved first and see how well people will embrace Wikipedia, especially with "other entities" getting media exposure.  --Sky Harbor 13:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: How do we collaborate with Wpinas?

message: This may sound unbelievable, but now we have this: the Filipino Wikipedia test (or possibly more appropriately, the Taglish Wikipedia test).  I thought this issue was dead long ago.  --Sky Harbor 04:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought I should be happy but after reading the Asian Games article I LOLed. --Howard the Duck 05:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pwede bang pa-delete na yan? Masakit na nga ulo ko pinapasakit pa lalo.--Lenticel (talk) 05:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nakaka-laf nga yung mga artikel doon hehehe --Howard the Duck 05:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not part of that, but i'm supportive of having a Wikipedia in Filipino. --Scorpion prinz (Talk | contribs) 07:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've double-checked the User Page of the user who requested for this...hindi sya Pinoy, so it's likely that he may not be that aware of Philippine language-related issues. So I'd suggest that we all provide our insights (pro and con) on the request page just in case. --- Tito Pao 08:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Lol, this is amusing. Shrumster 10:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Napa hehehe din ako :D Amusing, yeah...but shouldn't we all keep our minds open? Open to realities that indeed there is such thing as Filipino language (other than Tagalog) and that there are plenty of Filipinos out there who would write/spell "Sayans" for Science instead of "Agham" or "Syensya". Isn't Filipino alive, kicking, fluid, evolving...etc?  --Weekeejames 13:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the thing. Taglish is just english+tagalog. More people would spell "sayans" as science rather than sayans. Shrumster 14:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: kala ko supersayans =D †Bloodpack† 15:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: hahahaha --Howard the Duck 15:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Lol, alala ko tuloy yung Animax dub ng Initial D: 4th Stage. I guess that's the requirement for taglish WP - it has to sound like a dubbed TV show. :P Shrumster 16:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A similar discussion 2 years ago: http://tl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Pagsalin_ng_mga_nilalaman_ng_Wikipedia_na_ito_sa_Filipino --Nino Gonzales 10:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Filipinayzd's use of what is known as the fifth rule of Philippine orthography (bigkas-sulat-basa or "a word is spelled the way it is read") is valid provided that the words produced would not be of laughable character.  That is why words like dyim, magasin, siyampu and kompyuter are acceptable, whereas sayans wouldn't be.  Although then again, the rules are non-binding and anyone can use it as they please.  --Sky Harbor 23:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who, then, determines what is "laughable" and what is not laughable (both in local and international perspective) in an evolving and fluid language like Filipino. I beg, seriously, the answer to this question. Why can sayans for Science be unaccepted while kompyuter for computer be accepted? Nagsisisi ako kung bakit napa hehehe ako when this is, actually, a serious matter. Btw, if wikipedia can have a simple English Wikipedia apart from the [standard] English Wikipedia, why can't we have a Filipino wikipedia apart from Tagalog Wikipedia - a Filipino Wikipedia that can be understood by most, if not all, Filipinos and not just the Tagalogs? --Weekeejames 20:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a humorous aside. I grew up in Bulacan and Manila so I'm technically Tagalog. And I can't make heads-or-tails out of the Tagalog Wikipedia. :P Never got used to reading that Balagtas-style stuff. Tabloid-level, siguro pwede pa. :P Shrumster 21:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

text: As a sidenote, the rulings of the Académie française (the organization that publishes an official French dictionary) are considered advisory an not binding on either the public or the government, contrary to popular misconception about the French language. --- Tito Pao 04:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

text: That may be the case for certain words, but my impression is that there isn't wide acceptance and usage for many other English words. Before that happens, atrocities like "sayens" should be avoided. --Chris S. 07:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I cannot understand why Tagalog can import (and tolerate) many Spanish words into its vocabulary (like "Syensya" for Cienca among many other words, for example) when there is a legitimate Tagalog word for it (Agham) and Filipino should not import (and should not tolerate because it's an atrocity and harmful to Tagalog) English words into its vocabulary (like "sayans" for "Science"). Why do we keep judging the versatility and evolving character of the Filipino language on biased grounds? --Weekeejames 17:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tagalog is not alone.  English has done the same thing with regards to borrowings from French, Latin, Greek, and Old Norse when perfectly English words exist.  Why do we say "geology" and not "earth-study?" Or why do we have two words for the same animal - canine/dog, feline/cat, bovine/cow, etc.  One of the explanations is that it's more fashionable or prestigious to use a word from a different language. Another is that perhaps the word in the native language has some connotations that a new word wouldn't have.  It is the same thing in Japanese and Korean - they have Chinese words.  They use Chinese numbers for different items that it's reminiscent of when Filipinos use Spanish numbers for particular things as well. --Chris S. 21:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Precisely the point I am driving at - If Tagalog can do it, why can't Filipino? If it's not "laughable" for Tagalogs, why is it "laughable" for Filipino to devise its own orthography? May bias eh. Lumalabas ang imperial character ng mga taga Luzon - Manileños and Tagalogs. --Weekeejames 07:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text: As for me, Tagalog has a stricter vocabulary compared to Filipino. And what I'd mostly consider as the vernacular is actually Filipino. I'd likely support the Filipino Wikipedia. Ü --Scorpion prinz (Talk | contribs) 20:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am also for the Filipino Wikipedia. For comparison purposes, there is the simple English wikipedia apart from the English Wikipedia, and if the Filipino Wikipedia should reach more Filipinos (other than the Tagalogs), I don't see any reason why I should object. --Weekeejames 07:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Remember that Filipino was concocted by politicians with no formal linguistics training in 1987 and was defined in a memo to be the speech of Manila in 1991.  Many of us spoke Tagalog long before then, did we magically start talking Filipino in 1987 or 1991? I think not.  Tagalog is the broader language; it has absorbed words from various languages long before Filipino was invented.  The presence of English or Spanish words in Tagalog does not change it into political invention.  At its current stage, Filipino is simply another Tagalog dialect. And as such, it doesn't require another Wikipedia. It would be like making another Wikipedia specifically for American English or British English. --Chris S. 21:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IMHO, politicians can really alter how a language is named. Hindi (India's national language) and Urdu (Pakistan's national language) for example are linguistically the same, the difference is the way they are written, Sanskrit and Arabic, respectively. Laotian and Thai languages are the same, but when you cross the Mekong river, they are referred to differently. Correct me if I'm wrong but I recall, when we talk about the Tagalog alphabet we have A, B, K, D, E, G, H... in contrast to Filipino which has A, B, C, D, E... plus Ñ and NG. The concept of developing a national language is similar to what Indonesia had done with Bahasa. Filipino is indeed an offspring of Tagalog, and the concept of developing this into a national language didn't only start in 1987. The 1935 Constitution called for the development of one from the existing national languages, which it determined to be Tagalog as having the most number of speakers, but the 1973 instituted it as Pilipino, with its evolution it then came to be known as Filipino in 1987, Filipino has a long way to go for me. --Scorpion prinz (Talk | contribs) 00:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, politicians and what not can alter a language's name. But that does not change the scientific and linguistic reality.  As for Tagalog's alphabet, since Filipino is Tagalog then it follows that Tagalog has the same amount of letters as Filipino has.  Another way to look at it is that Tagalog has always had many letters, but during 1939(?)-1987, it was defined as having 20.  Prior to the 1930s, Tagalog had a lot more letters.  And yes, Filipino does have a long way to go and that's why, in its current state, it does not warrant its own Wikipedia. Perhaps in a generation or two but right now?  It's nothing but standardized Tagalog. --Chris S. 01:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Thank God for Politics. After all, Politics is about "decision making". I believe Filipino continues to evolve and one day it will no longer be a "vernacular" , a "dialect" or too much dependent on Tagalog. I look forward to the day when Filipino vocabulary will also be rich in other indigenous languages like Cebuano, Bikolano, Hilgaynon, etc. and not just Spanish and English and even more flexible in its orthography. The Filipino language should be a factor of national unity. --Weekeejames 07:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This may add some helpful insights, or confusion:  - at least he's among the constitutionalists who took part in "the making of the Filipino language" in 1987. --Scorpion prinz (Talk | contribs) 09:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text: And as it stands, the chairman of the KWF just recently (see Filipino language) said that Filipino is essentially Tagalog. Finally they admitted it. --Chris S. 01:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've actually read that too. At first, we'd think that things are clearer now, but...is his statement legally binding? This is very important for those arguing for a non-Tagalog based Filipino language. --Pare Mo 06:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Being one of the framers of the constitution, his opinion - though not legally binding - of course, matters. To those who challenge the Filipino language, they should go to the Supreme Court - the interpreter of the law. There should be no arguments for a non-Tagalog based Filipino language because it is already essentially [but only initially] Tagalog (Pilipino). What we should want to see is an evolution of an infusion of the many major Philippine languages into one national language that is flexible and can be understood by most - if not all - Filipinos. Ang hirap sa atin, batas na nga...nasa konstitusyon na nga...ayaw pang ring sumunod, hindi pa rin (o sadyang ayaw lang talaga) nakaka-intindi. --Weekeejames 07:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The constitution clearly states: "The national language of the Philippines is Filipino." Why did the Filipinos ratify the constitution in 1987 with something in it that was unclear and had not been defined [at that time] in the first place? It further says: "As it evolves, it shall be further developed and enriched on the basis of existing Philippine and other languages..." It's already pretty sensible for a Filipino wikipedia to exist as the language continues to evolve. Can't you not all see that having a Filipino wikipedia can help make the ideals and aspirations of our beloved constitution come true??? Give Filipino a chance! Give the entire Filipino people a chance and not just the Tagalogs themselves. --Weekeejames 17:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IMHO, the Filipino language needs to die. Unity will never be achieved by arbitrarily favoring and excluding ethnic groups.  But that's just my opinion. As has been stated above, Filipino is Tagalog. Why have two Wikipedias in the same languages?  Nobody has been able to come up with a reasonable, scientifically-sound, clear, and unarbitrary distinction between Filipino and Tagalog.  People try, but there is no clear consensus. --Chris S. 01:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not really the way it works here...you see, a Visayan can grow up speaking only Tagalog (apart from English) and still identify strongly as a Visayan. Ethnicity is above language. --Pare Mo 05:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, Pare Mo. However, that's really the point here. Ignoring that small issue, I have to say that it's neither  really representative of the vast majority of members of a particular Philippine ethnolinguistic group. When the Philippine government excludes, say Hiligaynon, you're essentially disenfranchising Ilonggos, as most Ilonggos speak Hiligaynons. --Chris S. 01:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I was at university library today and saw the UP Filipino dictionary; many of the English words defined were not written according to Tagalog/Filipino orthography. Some were, though.  The only thing that comes to mind is "obedience," but I should've looked up sayans. ;-). --Chris S. 01:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text: It's actually Diksyunaryo ng Wikang Filipino. Yes, Filipino is essentially Tagalog, as Bahasa Indonesia is a standardized dialect of the Malay language. --Scorpion prinz (Talk | contribs) 13:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apples and oranges.  Indonesia and Malay are national languages for two different countries. Furthermore, Malay and Indonesian have many differences that Filipino and Tagalog do not have. That is the case with Hindi & Urdu, Lao & Thai, Serbian & Croatian, Moldovan & Romanian,  etc. --Chris S. 15:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd look at it this way... As 'Manang' and 'Manong' are Ilocano terms, but have already been in common use in Filipino, while in Tagalog you would use 'Ale' and 'Mama' (so does in Filipino). For the lack of a better example, the Cebuano 'bayot' is already accepted in Filipino, but Tagalog would have it as 'bakla' or 'binabae'.. Seeing this it provides sense that Filipino is an infusion of all Philippine languages that have come in common use in the vernacular. Distinctions are not clearly defined as of yet, Filipino is just stemming out from Tagalog. It will take time. I just don't want to shut the Filipino language out. --Scorpion prinz (Talk | contribs) 07:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do really think that the problem exists because of the 'misconception' that Filipino is Tagalog. We can say that the precursor of this language was Pilipino ([from] initially and currently, essentially Tagalog), eventually it will not be the case when we ourselves start following the objectives of our law (the constitution) and start educating ourselves. --Weekeejames 13:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the case of Croatia, basing their newly created--through politics--national language on Serbian wasn't a problem since Croats--again, through their politicians--accepted it. The question is, however, will non-Tagalog Filipinos accept Tagalog as the basis for our national language? --Pare Mo 05:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Two words, DILA and SOLFED. --Chris S. 01:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  They're kidding us, right? 

message: Please give me the complete results of Philippine presidential and vice-presidential election results from 1946 to 2004 province by province to my e-mail or post the complete results in Wikipedia because I want to know who presidential or vice-presidential candidate won in the particular provinces from 1946 up to 2004 and I will claim to myself that I am Adam Carr Philippine version. I need for the complete results so that the Filipino people will know who presidential or vice-presidential candidate won in the particular provinces. Please understand me. --Joseph Solis in Australia 10:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Scorpion prinz is currently out of town. Please be patient. If I remember correctly, he has photocopies of many documents, some written in Spanish. It will take a long time to convert them into digital form (even just images) and Scorpion prinz is not a full-time Wikipedia volunteer. --seav 01:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My purpose as I said is that I want that Filipino people will know the complete results of Philippine presidential and vice-presidential election results from 1946 to 2004 province by province breakdown. To my 5-year research, The Philippine election data is the most uncomprehensive election data in the world because of lack of archiving the past election results from the COMELEC and NAMFREL via Internet whereas the Australian, Mexican, United States election data is the most comprehensive election data in the world.--Joseph Solis in Australia 09:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Number 2, COMELEC is tainted in controversies such as annulling the automated machine contract between COMELEC and Mega Pacific eSolutions Inc because of bidding irregularities. COMELEC also is  tainted in massive fraud controversies because of conversation between Virgilio Garcilliano and President Arroyo that Arroyo cheated the presidential election of 2004 to win. That is the cause why  the Philippine election is still in manual counting and that is the cause also why COMELEC cannot released the complete results with province by province breakdown from Presidential to Senatorial elections and barangay by barangay breakdown Presidential to Municipal councilors elections.--Joseph Solis in Australia 09:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand your concerns, but demanding for the results won't magically improve elections in the Philippines. Please be patient. But if you really, really want the results now how about trying to contact PCIJ (http://www.pcij.org)? They have done a lot of election analyses over the past two decades and I bet that they have the same data that Scorpion prinz has. It's quite possible that they already have this data in electronic form. --seav 13:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Detailed Philippine presidential and vice-presidential election results from 1946 to 2004 province by province 

message: ....Whoa. Uthanc 11:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can say that again. =) -- • Kurt Guirnela • ‡ Talk 12:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There could be an article on Philippine slang (through the years?) if there isn't already, but it would really need valid references. Uthanc 12:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Found this Copongcopongs Pinoy Slang Dictionary. It could be source for starters. -- • Kurt Guirnela • ‡ Talk 12:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't promise I'll work on that in the future, sorry (occupied with other stuff, including real life) though I may try. Another note:
The Lupin TV series article could use comparisions to Lupin III and the original French Arsène Lupin stories (I'd be surprised if they really had a lot in common). I don't know any other ones than the name Lupin and the fact that they're all about thieves, as I haven't watched it. Uthanc 16:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Fernando Gago]]... and some suggestions 

message: From the Philippine Madrigal Singers' Friendster Profile:
http://profiles.friendster.com/3964570
:"The Philippine Madrigal Singers won the 2007 European Grand Prix of Choral Music. The first and only choir in the world to win this most prestigious competition twice. Thank you so much for the support and prayers! Mabuhay ang Korong Pilipino!"
Another reason to be proud of our country!!! :D
I also got this information from a very reliable source (the Madz's current coutourier and the brother of one of the altos), but the official contest website hasn't updated yet because...well, I got wind of the news at around 6 in the morning, which is late night in Italy, so I guess their webmaster might still be sleeping :P So as soon as it gets officially published, I'll update the Madz's article, as well as that of the European Grand Prix for Choral Singing. --- Tito Pao 01:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So...? --Howard the Duck 03:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's on the Inquirer website.  If you can get there in time, you can make habol and add it in.  --Sky Harbor 14:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This should have been included in GMA's sona... --Howard the Duck 14:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Already updated. Besides, what does a philistine like GMA know about culture anyway? She picked small fry in her SONA. --- Tito Pao 15:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: She did announce some Filipino achievements you've never heard of? LOL --Howard the Duck 00:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not unless you have an erratic schedule like mine...the only news I'd ever get to watch is the morning news (from Dos and Siete)...if and when I ever get to see it at the office pantry. Lately, I also don't get to touch a newspaper, so I'm almost depenent on news websites (both local and foreign) =P --- Tito Pao 00:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Philippine Madrigal Singers|They]] did it again!!! =) 

message: 99.5 HiT FM -> 99.5 Hit FM to conform with WP:MOS. --Howard the Duck 13:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Weird. I speedied the redirect to make way for the move but it was removed. I guess someone's contesting the suggested move? Or did the guy just misunderstand what we were trying to do? Shrumster 06:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We need a Pinoy admin to do the dirty work... --Howard the Duck 02:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move: 

message: I wish Ambeth Ocampo was a Wikipedian. Anyway, I noticed some articles have Zaide as their primary source. Isn't his work outdated in terms of viewpoint and scholarship? Uthanc 21:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi! I've read all of Ambeth Ocampo's books...or, at least, most of it. He uses Zaide not as the only reference but as one of his many references. This means that he also has Agoncillo and Constantino and a slew of other authors that not many Filipinos must have heard of. In addition, by virtue of his experience and his position, he has access to a lot of sources that would otherwise be inaccessible to the general public (among other things, he was granted access to the original manuscript of the Noli and the Fili, which is kept under lock and key at the vaults of the National Library/National Archive, the permission of this is extremely difficult to obtain). What Ambeth Ocampo reiterates over and over again is that the original (or primacy) sources itself, naturally, cannot be updated (do you think that the Katipuneros will rise from the grave to re-update their writings? ;) --- Tito Pao 21:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Non-WP related but personally, they should scan/make digtal copies and have them accessible on the library's website or something. Would be much, much easier for pseudo-researchers like WPedians and other students/etc. What's the "Statute of Limitations" for Phil copyright stuff anyway? (And does that even apply since these were written before we actually had a country?) Shrumster 06:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Try filipiniana.org. You will find a lot there. But we're supposed to use secondary and tertiary sources in Wikipedia, if I remember correctly. --Nino Gonzales 04:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can actually use any source, primary or not, as long as you attribute it. --seav 00:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Philippine history articles 

message: http://www.semapedia.org/ --Nino Gonzales 06:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cool: Semapedia 

message: ...so I have the following peepz' numbers on my email inbox:
*Jojit fb
*Lenticel
*seav
*Nino Gonzales
And, of course, I have Sky Harbor's number as well (but you should all be able to find that information as well =P I also have Scorpion prinz's email address, but not his number...so if I have to send out something, I'd like to include him as well.
I'd like to first apologize for not having updated myself lately: my new work sked begins this week and, while I still have Sundays and Mondays off, my work hours were moved a few hours early, so that would mean I leave for work when most of you are sleeping or have just turned off their TV sets after catching up on Bandila or 24 Oras; I'm taking my lunch while most of you are just having your breakfast; and I'm getting prepped up for bedtime when most of you are having merienda. I'm still having migraines since this is the first week of my new sked =P
Per seav, the new venue will be at the Marina Restaurant near Wensha Spa. The date and time will be this Sunday, Sept. 2 2007, at around lunchtime.
Nino is proposing something for the meet-up---in particular, he thinks that those who wants to come to the meet-up should...well, meet up first before proceeding to the Marina resto. I'll be e-mailing the details to the others and, as soon as I can, text everyone about this proposal. I'll be prioritizing those I've named above. If you want to be included in my mailing list, please let me know ASAP. My "Email this user]] link is still open for you to use, so feel toxic to send me a note.
One final note: I'll be copying this post to the other post in the Meet-up page, so feel free to respond to either thread. Thanks --- Tito Pao 18:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a quick note. Been to the Blogger's Dinner and talked to Wikiboy about the arrangement for the lunch Meet-up. They're actually quite busy with the Book Fair (especially since it's a weekend) and they probably won't meet us face-to-face to talk about things. It's basically just us and a FilNet representative who will foot the lunch bill. Anyway, I got Wikiboy's contact number in case we guys really need to have a dialogue with the FilNet/WikiPinas people. --seav 00:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ganon?  Okay, I'll be sending out an email to you that contains everyone's numbers, with a CC to the others (including Sky Harbor. I'll try to update myself after the shift (just a little after lunchtime), we all really need to discuss plans for tomorrow. If ever, please pass word that I will be online tonight and, probably, a little bit between lunchtime and before dusk, so that we can all discuss how to go about this since hindi rin lang pala matutuloy yung meet-up with the WPinas key people. Thanks. --- Tito Pao 02:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Guys a little off topic lang ha pero pwede ba sa World Trade tayo magkita? Kasi doon papunta yung pamilya ko at hindi ko alam ang lugar. Lenticel (talk) 09:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm actually going to the bookfair first thing in the morning since I wasn't able to make it in the past few days (because of my !%@?!ing schedule (grrr...), so either way I would still be there. How about the others? --- Tito Pao 11:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Magsisimba ako sa Day by Day (CCP) so around 12 ako makakapunta.Lenticel (talk) 12:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  One day to go... 

message: Could someone familiar with your national language please check Paul nico acode and determine if the article is a candidate for speedy deletion (non-notable, attack etc)? Thanks, WWGB 09:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Speedy delete as an attack page and as a WP:BIO violation. --Howard the Duck 09:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Delete the pics too. --Howard the Duck 09:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Paul nico acode]] 

message: Check out the Technews section of today's (Sep 3) edition. I've been interviewed by Ms. Annalyn Jusay regarding WikiPilipinas and Wikipedia. It doesn't seem to be online yet, so try to get the actual paper in the meantime. :-) --seav 08:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Enjoy... http://www.mb.com.ph/issues/2007/09/03/TECH20070903102006.html --Nino Gonzales 07:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Wikipedia vs. WikiPilipinas Debate in Manila Bulletin 

message: *http://www.philstar.com/index.php?Opinion&p=49&type=2&sec=25&aid=20070912221
*http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/storypage.aspx?StoryId=92251
----Exec8 19:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia and WikiPilipinas By ISAGANI CRUZ, The Philippine Star

message: Thanks to the following people for attending the Manila Wikipedia Meetup II cum Wikipedia-WikiPilipinas dialogue:
* Tito Pao
* Lenticel NEW!
* Alternativity (all the way from La Union!) NEW!
* Scorpion prinz
* Jojit fb
* Nino Gonzales NEW!
* seav
* Exec8
Thanks to Mr. Gus Vibal for the lunch, to Wikiboy for the arrangements, and to the rest of the Filipiniana.net/WikiPilipinas team. --seav 02:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope the others can help me out...I definitely may have misheard/missed some points. --- Tito Pao 04:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

text: (Note: I know there's a lot of points I missed out on that one...see what I mean? =P --- Tito Pao 04:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

text: "We need to recruit more active members of the fairer sex. It seems that it is mostly males that hang-out in the tambayan and those who participate in offline events, hindi naman tayo frat." Amen to that! :P Shrumster 06:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I "third" the motion Alternativity 17:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Re pictures: I actually have mine, but I haven't uploaded it yet. The others brought in their camera as welll (I remember seav and Jojit asking one of the WPinas guys to take our pictures early on in the meeting). --- Tito Pao 16:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I placed my thoughts about our meeting with Wpinas in one of your comments. I hope you don't mind my blogsquatting :) Sky Harbor--Gus Vibal had a suggestion re WMPH which I placed in my comment. http://vaes9.codedgraphic.com/posts/wikipilipinas_not_a_pedia#comment_11 --Nino Gonzales 10:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Next steps for Tambayan Philippines 

message: can somebody provide details of the discussions?
:I hope the others can help me out...I definitely may have misheard/missed some points. --- Tito Pao 04:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (Note: I know there's a lot of points I missed out on that one...see what I mean? =P --- Tito Pao 04:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: On WikiPilipinas

message: During the meeting we have identified three objectives that the Pinoy English Wikipedia community should spearhead:
# Have a legal front for contact Philippine media for copyright assertions and Philippine knowledge institutions for data gathering.
# Have a more concerted effort in improving Philippine-related articles in the English Wikipedia.
# Have publicity drives to promote Wikimedia content among educational institutions in the Philippines
Objectives #1 and #3 require that we have Wikimedia Philippines Foundation, Inc. and should involve the other Pinoy Wikipedia communities in other Wikimedia projects. Objective #2 does not need a foundation and concerns only the Pinoy English Wikipedia community. The Meetup participants agreed that we should concentrate on #2 primarily while there is no Foundation yet. As for the Foundation, we decided that the first step is to get 20 committed members (from across the Wikimedia community) and that we need a rough timetable or road-map so that we have a direction or goal to look up to. Unfortunately, we haven't hashed out any plans yet.
--seav 02:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "We need to recruit more active members of the fairer sex. It seems that it is mostly males that hang-out in the tambayan and those who participate in offline events, hindi naman tayo frat." Amen to that! :P Shrumster 06:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I "third" the motion Alternativity 17:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Re pictures: I actually have mine, but I haven't uploaded it yet. The others brought in their camera as welll (I remember seav and Jojit asking one of the WPinas guys to take our pictures early on in the meeting). --- Tito Pao 16:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: On Wikipedia

message: Right now, the Tambayan is just that: a tambayan. We all have our own pet projects and we basically just go to the Tambayan to check what others are doing, to get a bit of Wikinews, and to occasionally get some support for some cause.
There is currently no concerted effort within the Pinoy English Wikipedia community to improve Philippine-related articles in the English Wikipedia. There was a drive before to promote three articles to Featured status by the end of 2005 but after the vote that selected Manila, José Rizal, and Boracay for the process, things sort of petered out. (Next time, people who voiced their support should have committed to help with those articles.) Let's plan to revive such community efforts as a complement to our pet projects.
What are some activities as a community that we can do? Here are some examples (all of which are micro-WikiProjects):
* Create stub/start-level articles for 50% of all Philippine-related requested articles that have been requested as of a cut-off date.
* Assess and categorize all geographical and biographical articles that are existing as of a cut-off date.
* Promote to B-level status all articles about National Artists.
* Translate all existing FA Philippine-related articles to the Tagalog Wikipedia.
We can have 1,2,3 or more of these activities every 1,2,3 or more months or in any manner that the community decides. Which community activities to be done for each time period can be decided by an elected council or by consensus of the community. And individual people can nominate activities to be done for future time periods.
Aside from these temporal community activities, let's activate others that should be done all-year-round. Some examples:
* Maintain a (bi-)weekly e-mail newsletter talking about Tambayan activities and micro-WikiProject statuses and choice snippets from the Wikipedia Signpost and other official Wikipedia pages. This newsletter should be given to all Wikipedians in the Tambayan roster.
* Welcome drive for new Pinoy Wikipedians encouraging them to join the Tambayan.
* Main Tambayan page maintenance
* Portal:Philippines maintenance
--seav 02:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "We need to recruit more active members of the fairer sex. It seems that it is mostly males that hang-out in the tambayan and those who participate in offline events, hindi naman tayo frat." Amen to that! :P Shrumster 06:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I "third" the motion Alternativity 17:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Re pictures: I actually have mine, but I haven't uploaded it yet. The others brought in their camera as welll (I remember seav and Jojit asking one of the WPinas guys to take our pictures early on in the meeting). --- Tito Pao 16:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Objective #2

message: I've uploaded some of my pictures from the event. See Wikipedia:Meetup/Manila 2. I've also blogged about the event and there are more in Flickr.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seav (talk • contribs) 17:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I placed my thoughts about our meeting with Wpinas in one of your comments. I hope you don't mind my blogsquatting :) Sky Harbor--Gus Vibal had a suggestion re WMPH which I placed in my comment. http://vaes9.codedgraphic.com/posts/wikipilipinas_not_a_pedia#comment_11 --Nino Gonzales 10:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pictures!!!

message: I had some spare time.  I love making userboxes.
ætərnal ðrAعon → 11:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Amen to that!  --Sky Harbor 11:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Should we finally elevate the Tambayan RNB as a full-fledged WikiProject? --Howard the Duck 17:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I support provided someone will unblock the project's original proponent (we all know who he is).  --Sky Harbor 11:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hahahaha... he's on the Tagalog WP, right? I'm too lazy to go there, why don't you inform him there? --Howard the Duck 12:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hold on, what tdo you mean by full-fledged?  Do projects need to be "officially recognised" or something? ætərnal ðrAعon → 02:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not necessarily.  It's just that we're still quite informal and are in the early stages of organizing into a WikiProject.  --Sky Harbor 11:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Another admin blocked him for another reason... --Chris S. 01:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I believe he was blocked due to him posting his password for his username. For Shrumster, the exploits of He-who-must-not-be-named is found in the tambayan's archives. He was the first person to concieve the idea of the Wikiproject Philippines but things got downhill... --Lenticel (talk) 07:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Frankly or not, Emir214 (there, I named he-who-must-not-be-named) may or may not have been aware of his actions.  Given that it has been well over a year since the controversy (correct me if I'm wrong), I think it's time for him to be unblocked and welcomed back to the community.  I think both sides have matured to this conclusion: the former has honed his Wikipedia skills on the Tagalog Wikipedia, while the latter (as in us) have decided to organize WikiProject Philippines in an attempt to bridge the rift between both sides.  --Sky Harbor 14:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So Sky could you do the honors and invite him here? Hindi pa yata niya ako nakikilala --Lenticel (talk) 15:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if I can proxy.  Normally the policy calls for him to appeal his ban.  --Sky Harbor 15:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe you could convince him to show up and appeal for himself. PS. Does anyone notice that the talk page is way too bloated? --Lenticel (talk) 15:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is. :P Is this thing manually archived? Shrumster 06:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Dear lord, my Tagalog reading comprehension is shot. :P Took me several minutes to just navigate around there. :P Shrumster 15:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Request denied.  The password controversy made it quite complicated to be unblocked since there is no more guarantee that said account is under his control.  Per advice of the administrator denying his request, he should create a new account.  --Sky Harbor 14:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I created a new account already. From now on, I shall be called (for the English Wikipedia only) User:MSHS personfellow07 (on the Tagalog Wikipedia, I am still referred to as Emir214) - MSHS personfellow07 14:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I should have suggested you get your alternate account unblocked, but oh well.  That's up to you.  --Sky Harbor 23:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just an extra thing 

message: Just so everyone knows, in a comment he left on my talk page on the Tagalog Wikipedia, he is appealing his block.  Hopefully he will get unblocked.  Besides, a responsible Tagalog Wikipedia editor should deserve to be unblocked on the English Wikipedia, especially as a sign of goodwill.  --Sky Harbor 11:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Request denied.  The password controversy made it quite complicated to be unblocked since there is no more guarantee that said account is under his control.  Per advice of the administrator denying his request, he should create a new account.  --Sky Harbor 14:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I created a new account already. From now on, I shall be called (for the English Wikipedia only) User:MSHS personfellow07 (on the Tagalog Wikipedia, I am still referred to as Emir214) - MSHS personfellow07 14:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I should have suggested you get your alternate account unblocked, but oh well.  That's up to you.  --Sky Harbor 23:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unblocking of Emir214

message: i know that you guys want to be independent, but maybe it is just more easier and more convenient if someone will merge the two resources
Andre boink100 13:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be the other way around. --Howard the Duck 14:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically speaking, that is not only impractical, it's infeasible. Either you order WikiPilipinas to take their servers to Florida et.al. (but then, WPinas would appear like it's Wikipedia content), or tell Wikipedia to cram its humongous data into the much smaller ISP of WikiPilipinas (Wikipedia's servers are distributed over a hundred servers in different ISPs and universities in three continents; the host of WikiPilipinas, AFAIK, is hosted by one company only.) It's like trying to cram all the animals of a zoo inside a chihuahua's doghouse. Kamusta naman yon? =P Bear in mind that WikiPilipinas is much smaller in scope than Wikipedia---it limits itself only to Philippine-related topics. And although you can see Pinoys here on the Wikipedia, we're still very much a part of the greater Wikipedia. Demanding a merge of Wikipedia and WikiPinas is being simplistic and naive, to put it mildly. --- Tito Pao 16:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Yep. As Howard and Pao have stated already, bad idea. WikiPilipinas' scope is purely Philippine-related topics while the Filipino Wikipedias (Tagalog, Cebuano, other dialects) are Wikipedia-in-another-language. So they keep Wikipedia's scope of...pretty much anything. Shrumster 07:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose Merge per above. I suggest Cleanup for Wikipedia and Expand Wikipilipinas.--Lenticel (talk) 07:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Favor on Merge Wikipilipinas must be merged with Wikipedia and Wikipilipinas wants that Wikipedia in the Philippines will embarrassed and I believe that Mr. Gus Vibal of Wikipilipinas cannot surpass Jimbo Wales of Wikipedia. Go for Merge.--Joseph Solis in Australia 07:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another point, Wikipilipinas tolerates original sources whereas Wikipedia is not and I believe also that Wikipilipinas is many hoax articles than Wikipedia for the years to come because Wikipilipinas tolerates original sources and I believe that Wikipilipinas will not succeed like on Spanish Wikipedia-Enciclopedia Libre controversy that Enciclopedia Libre, first surpass in terms of number of articles but later Spanish Wikipedia surpass Enciclopedia Libre in terms of number of articles. This is my basis for merging of Wikipilipinas to Wikipedia. I have no intention to harm Wikipilipinas but it is the fact that Wikipilipinas tolerates original sources. I am ready to fight for Wikipedia survival.--Joseph Solis in Australia 07:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, as (I think) I may have stated in the past, I think there's a place for Wikipilipinas on the web. Right now, they've been (trying, at least) trimming down to directly-Philippine-relevant pages. And there's still my Matrix-Zion Hypothesis. :D One point though...diba pag merge, that means merge all useful encyclopedic data from the article to be merged from? Meron ba? :P Shrumster 11:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  merging Wikipiniana and the filipino wikipedia 

message: Tomorrow would be a day that would change Philippine history. Whatever happens I hope the Tambayan will still be able to create NPOV articles about what is happening to our land. To those who own a digicam, ready yourselves. We might actually get a Featured Photo or two should my prediction (Guilty) comes to fulfillment. Actually I never been this excited since Philippine Proclamation 1017 and the arrests of prominent Leftists group leaders. Sana may mangyaring kakaiba I was not part of EDSA I (too young) and II (was in Bulacan), I hope I will be a part of history this time --Lenticel (talk) 23:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. I hope and do believe that nothing seriously untoward will happen tomorrow. Unlike the original EDSA, hoping to be part of this kind of history is nothing to look forward to anymore. (But I'll still bring a camera.) --jaded seav 03:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't want to put that guy back to the throne (and I don't like the one sitting there either) and I don't want bloodshed. I just hope that something good will happen in this country after this event and if something is needed to usher that change I want to be in it. --Lenticel (talk) 03:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  Sigh. Didn't the Chinese have a saying "May you live in interesting times"? And wasn't it considered a curse?  Oh well.  The Chinese character for "Crisis" is composed of the characters for "danger" and "opportunity".  (hehe. Neither statement is something I'm ready to produce citations for) Whatever happens, may it lead to a greater maturity for our body politic -- and as a result lead to some relief from the "dark night of the soul" our society has been suffering through time immemorial. Alternativity 14:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Erap Plunder Case, anyone? --Howard the Duck 04:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The timeline is apparently lifted from ABS-CBN. here --bluemask (talk) 05:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why am I not surprised to find out who created the article? --seav 05:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tag it with . --Howard the Duck 06:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Deleted already. Can someone care to recreate the article (because we need an article for the trial) but maybe under a different title? Joseph Estrada plunder trial? Plunder trial of Joseph Estrada? --seav 15:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about Trial of Joseph Estrada as per Trial of Saddam Hussein? --Howard the Duck 23:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I started a stub article. The problem with your name is that it could also refer to the impeachment trial, an article-worthy event itself. --seav 01:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We can place it at Impeachment of Joseph Estrada. --Howard the Duck 02:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Don't use Impeachment - it is the process of removing a public official from office, this exercise is his trial. --Scorpion prinz (Talk | contribs) 02:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think he was referring to the impeachment trial itself, not the current one. Anyway, I stuck a shitload of references onto the article, but not yet integrated into in-line referfences. Anyone, feel free to do so. Politics just isn't my gig. Shrumster 07:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

text: there is even no wikinews for it...--Exec8 22:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm working on a Tagalog Wikinews article on Erap's guilty verdict.  Of course, speaking of the Tagalog Wikinews (which by the way is still on Incubator), I still need contributors and supporters!  VERY BADLY.  --Sky Harbor 12:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Joseph Estrada]] 

message: Since this one seems to be inactive, my question there here again. --83.242.63.120 22:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be best to ask the website in question. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 01:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be ineffective since most Philippine LGUs don't even have means of connecting to the Internet and responding to these queries.  If I interpret Section 176 correctly (which I still despise because of the conflict of government copyright being really free or not), public documents and text published by any branch of the Philippine government, including state-owned corporations, are in the public domain.  --Sky Harbor 12:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contents of http://elgu2.ncc.gov.ph/ and official Philippine LGU-Webpages copyrighted? 

message: The result in the infobox for this article is subject to continuous change between colonization and other terms such as annexation and control.  I have raised the issue on the talk page that colonization is a better term to use than annexation or control, unless someone can come up with a better expression than the "extension of American colonialism over the Philippines".  I've gotten the sense that people are either trying to minimize the American impact on the PI or do not think that colonization is appropriate given a lack of large scale American immigration there, most likely more of the latter.  Interested editors are invited to comment on the article's talk page.  BrokenSphereMsg me 15:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say occupation? Since annexation would mean, they partially own part of the Philippine and just annex the rest. --Scorpion prinz (Talk | contribs) 02:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Philippine-American War result: annexation/control/colonization? 

message: Earlier, someone from this WikiProject asked to have the lead of the INC article to be expanded. Is it possible for any of you here to help us out with that? --wL<speak·check> 02:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead for the [[Iglesia ni Cristo]] article. 

message: I didn't even know this article existed until just a few days ago. The article is orphaned so it didn't show up in google until recently. Just posting it here to let people know that it exists. Also see EPI (Philippines) — Sandtiger 11:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It requires a major cleanup. --Lenticel (talk) 23:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed a whole lot of information on the site that looks out of place. Like...scientific calculators, anyone? =P --- Tito Pao 01:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks better now. Good work Tito Pao!--Lenticel (talk) 04:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: lol...honestly, when I first saw the article, I thought the article was all about scientific calculators ;-) --- Tito Pao 20:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Philippine Nursing Licensure Exam]] 

message: I just discovered this .  The Philippines article is the 301st most viewed in English Wikipedia this month with about 49,000+ views per day.  What that does mean?  Since, it is the most viewed Philippine-related article, we can promote there (at least in the Philippines talk page) our Wikiprojects and Wikimedia Philippines and invite more Filipinos (or non-Filipinos) to help in contributing and cleaning-up Philippine-related articles in Wikipedia. --Jojit fb 02:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Philippines]] is the 301st most viewed article in the English Wikipedia 

message: There's an ongoing discussion at Talk:EDSA III to move the three EDSA articles into their "proper" article names. Please join in the discussion. --Howard the Duck 13:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These things are best resolved with a googlefight--Nino Gonzales 02:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The three EDSA Revolutions 

message: Philippine-relatedarticles	Philippine-relatedarticles	Importance	Importance	Importance	Importance	Importance	Importance
Philippine-relatedarticles	Philippine-relatedarticles	          	          	          	          	          	Total
Quality                   	                          	          	          	          	          	          	
Quality                   	                          	3         	1         	3         	1         	1         	9
Quality                   	                          	1         	          	          	          	          	1
Quality                   	                          	1         	3         	7         	9         	          	20
Quality                   	                          	30        	34        	12        	21        	2         	99
Quality                   	                          	6         	42        	11        	15        	10        	84
Quality                   	                          	1         	17        	12        	14        	26        	70
Quality                   	                          	42        	97        	45        	60        	39        	283
Quality                   	                          	0         	0         	1         	3         	153       	157
Quality                   	Total                     	42        	97        	46        	63        	192       	440
September 8, 2007 stats
Welcome to the Tambayan Philippines Assessment Department! This is part of the proposed dual nature of the Tambayan Philippines: first and foremost, it is a regional noticeboard for Philippine-related articles, and it is now a WikiProject for the Philippines. This dual nature is emphasized by the fact that we are neither named a "regional noticeboard" nor a "WikiProject".
Filipinos or Wikipedians who are interested in the Philippines who just want to hang-out with other Filipino Wikipedians and hear Philippine-related Wikipedia news can do so in our various talk pages (as a regional noticeboard). While those who want to expand and improve the coverage of Philippine-related articles can do so in our various project pages (as a WikiProject).
Shown to the right is the September 8, 2007 statistics of the articles currently tagged to be under the scope of the Tambayan Philippines. To tag other articles, just use the following template:
: 
: Where X = FA, A, GA, B, Start, Stub, or blank, and Y = Top, High, Mid, Low, or blank
Check out the Assessment page for more details and guidelines. For the curious, the  page was moved to  since all the other project banners are in the Template namespace.
Let's start tagging our pages! --seav 15:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Welcome to the Tambayan Philippines Assessment Department 

message: I've restructured the Assessment Department page and we need more activity there. (After all, we do plan in incorporating WikiProject-like activities into the Tambayan, right?) Some things to do:
# Comment on the new scope guidelines (based on the discussion)
# Comment on the importance guidelines (based on the discussion)
# Help identify the Top-importance articles
# Continue identifying and tagging the estimated 5,000 extant Philippine-related articles in EN-Wikipedia.
--seav 10:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Renewed call for assessment and RFC