We are supporters of Bayani Fernando and we anticipate that this Wikipedia entry will become very dominant as the election closes in. We request fair play among all other supporters from other candidates. Let us not edit each other out to float our bet. Say factually your point and we will say factually our point. Bayani Fernando is right now an underdog despite the fact that so many Filipinos would want him to run for President. He has not decided yet whethet to run or not. If you want, please join us to convince him. Bayani Fernando - Mar Roxas is a good tandem specially the fact that Bayani Fernando's father, Mayor Gil Fernando is the founder of the Liberal Party of Marikina so Bayani Fernando has a soft spot on the Liberals. Lets be gentlemen enough not to edit each other out because who knows , we might end up in the same ticket in year 2010... Philippine politics being so fluid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.86.204.114 (talk) 07:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Bayani Fernando for President is indeed snowballing. But a team up between BF and Roxas is very unlikely because BF is a loyal Party National Officer of Lakas - NUCD. He is also one of the few original members of Lakas NUCD who thru times flowered into a national leadership. He is a home grown Lakas officer, so to speak, and that is why FVR is very much behind him, for sentimental reason. In fact, he is the best bet of Lakas today, because according to Dir. Melvin Mitra of Malacanang, VP Noli de Castro is more inclined to join KAMPI.Lakas is the party of FVR and KAMPI is the party of GMA. Bayani Fernando has captured the imaginations of the Filipinos and he is not a traditional politician. Besides, he is also rich, with his company having been one of the top contractors of the country for so many years up to now, so, campaign fund is not his problem. He is unique type of public servant who became rich thru his honest to goodness and above board businesses, unlike some presidential aspirants who are very rich but does not have a business of their own. (Where did they get the money?). You will be surprise that Bayani Fernando has a track record, not only image, but a real track record, of pro poor projects, including giving homes to thousands of squatters when he was the mayor of Marikina and providing employment to thousand of jobless Filipinos. He is a real masa, a masa in real life. Unlike Erap who is only masa during photo ops and campaign sorties, but inside his cirlce, he is sorrounded by elites, beautiful girls and wheeler dealers.In fact, Erap was found guilty making money from the pension of ordinary workers in SSS in connivance with the rich (a reverse Robin Hood, you may say). Bayani Fernando, even in his house and in his office is sorrounded by masa or middle class professionals.. even in social gatherings, he is comfortable in a company of the masa and hard working middle class. Remember, he is a construction boy, so he knows how to deal with the "piyons". When Bayani Fernando said,"tignan nyo tong mukha ko, wala pa akong pinapatay... " True, he has never been involved in politics of violence. His politics is politics of pro poor public service, excellence and good taste. Water seeks its own level and Bayani Fernando has arrived.There is hope for the Philippines now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.53.109.92 (talk) 13:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Why Mr. Chua of Cebu Keeps on Removing the Article and we keep on unding his removals
The article is already a good starting point of Wikipedia informing the world of the politicians in the Philippines. The best Mr. Chua can do is to imrpove them. Wikipedia seem to be a victime of a bum who keeps on removing a good article. What can Wikipedia do on this case. How can it gets donation when its system is a captive of several bums. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.177.60.221 (talk) 12:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Mr. Chua (Bluemask), why did you remove it again. Dont you have any job? Why are you spending too much time in this game? What you are saying is not correct because there are lots of Wikipedia articles that are similarly situated, the remedy is just to put citation needed. Dont pull or legs.The Office of Senator Roxas has been monitoring you and will finally find you. Why do you have to remove the article just because Sen. Roxas has been projected favorably? We all know Sen. Roxas may not be run for President at all, he may end up as Vice President of Noli de Castro, but to project that he is also presidentiable is not bad and it is our duty has his staff to project him that way. Are you working for Sen. Jinggoy Estrada? then, why dont you improve his article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.177.60.221 (talk) 09:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
There is a problem when an editor (or editors) is doing the projecting actually -- it is considered doing original research if there is no reliable source to back it up. And can we stop the accusations? For the record, I do have a job but I don't work for any politician. A small question, who on Earth is Chua? --bluemask(talk)13:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Totidulay, I am Mr. Kevin Ray Chua and I must say that 2010 is still far away. These candidates have not yet declared officially their candidacies for President that's why it was deleted. I must admit that I am working on the campaign to let Mar Roxas run for President in 2010 but Wikipedia is a different place. I hope you can understand it. -- Kevin Ray (talk) 05:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Call for Unity among Filipino Wikipedians
I cant help but join the fray..because this Wikipedia article is rating high in the Google search under Bayani Fernando for President, so I often end up following this article.
Firstly, Bluemask is right, let us avoid name calling. It does not follow that if you are are active Wikipedian, you are a good - for - nothing - bum. I feel alluded also with this kind of insult because I am an active Wikipedian. Tell me if I am a bum: I am a full time professor in one universities in Manila, I am a board of director of AIM Alumni Association, I am taking my doctorate in Public Administration in UP, I am a consultant and a businessman...now tell me, am I a bum? I am sure Chua or Bluemask or all of us here are doing a lot of things too.
However, I also have a comment with Bluemask. Bakit kailangan alisin yung article eh informative naman. And we all know as Filipinos na all the things written there are accurate. In fact, maganda ang format nung article becuase it allows anyone to contribute.
Actually, yung article makes that Wikipedia entry very visible kasi Google picked it and put it in the google search of evry presidentiables listed there...thats how I came to read it because it was placed in Bayani Fernando For President Google entry. In other words, the article is also helping Wikipedia in terms of Philippine presence. So, if you are a true Wikipedian, lets help Wikipedia by restoring the article.
Let us unite as Filipino Wikipedians...
In putting the right president for our country.
I am not campaigning but as a matter of patriotism, I am always active during presidential campaigns. I was the Chairmen of PMP Chairmen's Forum that helped Erap won the Presidency. I am sorry now that I helped him. I thought last election that Roco was the best candidate and I ended up as his Campaign Manager for NCR.
Now, I think that the best man for the job is Bayani Fernando because he is not corrupt and he has political will to serve the poor and the general public. He gave homes to 11,000 squatters as Mayor of Marikina, fighting directly the landgrabbers back up by goons and money. He received threats and pressures, but he faced them openly anywhere and anytime.To me, this is bravery and political will in serving the poor.
Now, we Wikipedians in the Philippines should unite as a group and make the difference.. lets help our country by helping putting up the right president of our nation.
Mr. Totidulay, we have the same vision for the country but we have different bets. You are for Bayani Fernando and I am for Mar Roxas for President. Why not create a blog to spearhead your campaign. No one would moderate what you post. You are free to do it there, am I right Bluemask? -- Kevin Ray (talk) 05:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Start over
Before we are putting some politician's name in the "presidentiable" list, there must be a reliable source saying that. Example might be an announcement or an interview from the politician that he intends to run on 2010 or from his/her party saying that they are intending their party-mate to represent their party; a notable person (better if a political analyst) saying that a certain politician is fit to run on 2010. This must be stated on a newspaper or magazine article or from the official website of the politician or party. --bluemask(talk)03:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Here is the list taken from an old version of the article. The list was rearranged in alphabetical order based on last name for the sake of neutrality.
As soon as there will be citations for each on the list, then it will be safe to restore the list to the article. --bluemask(talk) 09:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC) This list is being considered as pure speculation until they are cited. --bluemask(talk)11:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
First of all, I think it's important that we should all agree that it is absolutely essential to cite credible sources when putting anything onto Wikipedia. While this is not a universal practice, as a matter of Wikipedia policy, it should be, and it is within the purview of any wikipedia editor to question content that is not properly cited. We should be guided in this case by Wikipedia's core content policies:Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view,Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:No original research. That being said, I suppose if anyone wants certain content to appear on this page, that individual must find a source for the statements s/he wishes to add. I don't see that there would be a problem if we followed that simple guideline.Alternativity (talk) 04:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Presidentiables
That being said, let's look at the case of the 2010 "Presidentiables." It can be argued that no such listing belongs here because nobody has filed a certificate of candidacy, and thus, nobody has made an official statement of his/her intent to run in the 2010 presidential race. On the other hand, a number of politicians have already made statements in the media indicating their interest in running. That, I believe, is sufficient documentation for coming up with a presidentiables list. Also, there are sources in the national media that identify people whose actions and statements indicate an interest in running for President in 2001. While this may be speculation on the part of the media, I believe it is, again, sufficient documentation for coming up with a list of supposed presidentiables. That makes three categories of presidentiables:
candidates who have filed a certificate of candidacy (in that section, we can state the start date for the filing of certificates, as there would not be any names on that list yet.)
candidates who have made statements to the media indicating their interest in running (I saw an article for Senator Gordon last year, so I'm certain there's at least one) and
candidates that the national media and/or the political parties have bandied about as probable presidentiables.
Every entry in any one of these categories should be verifiable, meaning every entry should cite its sources.
I am actually in favor of limiting that list to a list of names (and possibly the dates when the candidate announced his intent), with any discussion of the candidate's performance and platform being covered by a different article. (I'm having trouble thinking up a name for such, though.) Thoughts? Alternativity (talk) 05:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Issues
By the same merit that would allow us to list the presidentiables, should we decide to do so, I believe there should be a listing of core issues the candidates need to address. I mean, of course, only those issues identified by credible and verifiable sources (National Media, and official statements by international watchdog agencies). This would be difficult to maintain, but I submit that if we have names of candidates but do not have a list of issues, we would be supporting personality politics. Since the public will undoubtedly turn to this page for information, I believe a section listing the most critical issues of the day would be helpful, relevant, and important. Does anyone know any good sources that identify these issues? Perhaps SWS survey results or statements from UN agencies or Bretton Woods institutions? Alternativity (talk) 05:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to call attention to the fact that I am not adding to the main article unless I have some kind of verifiable source to back up my edits. I submit that we can avoid a constantly changing main article if only we stuck to the guiding principles of wikipedia, and seek consensus. Partisan politics has no place in Wikipedia. The public's right to access to information does. May I call on other wikipedians to commit to keeping this article consistent with the guiding principles of Neutrality,Verifiability, and not having unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories? Alternativity (talk) 05:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Mas Malakas ang Preno Kesa sa Makina
Why did you remove the link of Sen. Roxas, Mr. Chua, you are at it again ha. I though we are now headed for unity among Filipino Wikipedians and the first thing you did was to remove the link of my candidate. Are you saying Mar Roxas is not worthy to be president? Maybe you believe that Erap will go back. Or maybe you think that Roxas is only for Vice President. That is your perception. And you are not in authority to impose your will among us.
We Filipinos love to talk too much. We are more popish than the Pope. The way I see it, we will end up writing nothing in this article because "mas malakas ang nilagay nating preno kesa sa makina".
Whoever you are, you're telling the wrong thing. I must even admit that I am starting the campaign to draft Senator Mar Roxas for President in 2010 and even an online petition. So, is that what you call NOT SUPPORTING MAR ROXAS FOR PRESIDENT? I voluntarily erased the link in order to heed the call of other Filipino wiki admins. I am not really the authority to impose my will among the people. I'm just doing my part-- Kevin Ray (talk) 05:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Kevin Ray Chua of Cebu..we are confident that you and Bluemask and Howard are one, because you are all saying the same thing, so, allow us to call you BUM.
We know you. You are not even a member of LP in your barangay, how can you claim that you are working for Mar. You are not in our list and we dont need you. What we know is that you are the one who deleted a strongly pro Roxas Wikipedia article that is rating very high in Google. Not contented, you further deleted the pro Roxas links.We been arguing very hard for its restoration but you argued harder under the name of Bluemask and Howard the Bum. You deleted a highly Google rated Wikipedia article and bragged that you created a blog in exchange of it.You are just a babe in the woods in politics, a bum, ....would you fool us with this ploy. Who is reading your blog..you alone.Not even your mother reads it. Is that what you replaced with what you deleted?
You created a blog as a "defensive ploy" because you know that we are already monitoring you. We scared the shit out of you and that is the way how to deal with a bum.We know you will join LP to prove that you are a true Roxas fan but we know that its just your defensive posturing. That is one of the reasons why we dont like Chinese in Roxas Camp....they are so switik for comfort. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.177.60.221 (talk) 10:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Here's a picture of me, Sen. Mar Roxas, Councilor Peter Laviña and my dad during the LP event in Club Filipino last November 26, 2007I don't know what's wrong with you Mr. Unknown (who tries to hide himself by not signing his comments). I am not Howard nor Bluemask. To know more about me, visit http://kevinraychua.blogspot.com. I was even surprised that they removed http://marroxas2010.blogspot.com, http://liberalpresident2010.blogspot.com and http://teamgordon2010.blogspot.com which are blogs for 2010 and I was the one who posted it on the article. I WAS NOT THE ONE WHO DELETED IT! You can even see the history of that article and know who DELETED it. I AM NOT WORKING FOR MAR ROXAS. I am doing this as my hobby. I am a blogger since 2004 and I have initiated this Mar Roxas for President in 2010 Blog last July 24, 2007. I am a PRO-ROXAS you BUM! I even created the article Political positions of Mar Roxas and improved the Mar Roxas article just to make it more presentable but I took consideration that an article should not be BIASED because Wikipedia provides that an article should be in NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW. Even if I say that MAR ROXAS IS A PRINCIPLED MAN, not all would agree to me. It would remain as an OPINION even if it's a FACT for yourself. That's the point there! BTW, I know you have not yet saw the blog. I have been receiving messages from Saudi Arabia, US, Australia and other parts of the world supporting the campaign. Yes, I am not a member of LP and I decided not to because my work (by blogging for Mar Roxas) would be in complete compromise and his critics would say that I am being PAID by the Honorable Senator or even the LP. Don't even insult and mess up with us Tsinoys... -- Kevin Ray (talk) 14:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
"Whoever you are, you're telling the wrong thing. I must even admit that I am starting the campaign to draft Senator Mar Roxas for President in 2010 and even an online petition. So, is that what you call NOT SUPPORTING MAR ROXAS FOR PRESIDENT? I voluntarily erased the link in order to heed the call of other Filipino wiki admins. I am not really the authority to impose my will among the people. I'm just doing my part."
- I was referring here to the links that I erased in Mar Roxas ([1] and [2]) and in Bayani Fernando ([3] and [4]) to make it look clean. Instead of showing the complete URL of the site, I decided to make it clean by just doing the default. It looks like this:
signing your posts on talk pages and other Wikipedia discourse is good etiquette and facilitates discussion by helping other users to identify the author of a particular comment.
May I also respectfully request that you do not erase others' comments without explanations based on Wikipedia policies. I suppose, however that the deletion could have been an error, since as per Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith:
To assume good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. In allowing anyone to edit, we work from an assumption that most people are trying to help the project, not hurt it. If this were not true, a project like Wikipedia would be doomed from the beginning. When you can reasonably assume that a mistake someone made was a well-intentioned attempt to further the goals of the project, correct it without criticizing. When you disagree with people, remember that they probably believe that they are helping the project.
I choose, therefore, to believe that you too, kind sir/ma'am (I'm afraid I cannot tell on the basis of your I.P. Number which gender by which to refer to you.), are interested in the creation of a a neutral, credible encyclopedia article. Thanks! :-D Alternativity (talk) 08:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
To the anonymous poster: Let's start with your candidate. Can you provide us citations that your politician of choice is a "presidentiable"? Did he/she announced it somewhere so that we can quote it? --bluemask(talk)09:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Bluemask,thank you for writing the list of candidates based on the previous article. It is a partial admittance that it was probably a mistake that the previous article was deleted. Why didnt you write the list in the article proper? Are you afraid that somebody might edit it again?. Di ba ikaw lang naman ang mahilig mag edit, so, whom are you afraid of now? Mas malakas ba ang preno dun sa article proper kesa dito sa discussion page? Anyway, at least we are now moving forward. May I extend a handshake of peace. My candidate? Dont worry about him. Eddie Gil is fine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.177.60.221 (talk) 09:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
People, lets use our common sense. No candidate has expressed his intention to run for president now; nor is the clamor for any candidate to run by the people is well-documented. So naturally, this article will be empty FOR NOW. Wikipedia is not used for propaganda purposes, it is used to document information. 2007 is just ending and the 2007 winners haven't even finished half of their first year. --HowardtheDuck10:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Howard, if you are Filipino, your common sense will tell you that there are already candidates who openly signified their intention to run for president.Some were already declared by their parties. I dont know how to sign, so,I just let SineBot to sign for me. I dont intend to be discourteous because you might not vote for my candidate, Eddie Gil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.177.60.221 (talk) 10:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Cut the sarcasm 203.177.60.221, I'm a Pinoy and no candidate has openly declared his/her intentions to run for the presidency (several has said they'd think about it, but even if it is obvious already, this is purely speculation at this point). Maybe next year they'd be open about it, but as of now there's no source for this.
If there's one party that has "sort of" designated a standard-bearer, it's the Liberal Party, solely due to the election of Mar Roxas as party president. But a close comparison is my namesake Howard Dean; he's the Chairman of the Democratic National Convention but he's not in the race for the U.S. presidency yet. --HowardtheDuck10:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
P.S.: You can sign by adding four tildes ~~~~ at the end of your post.
Thanks for telling me how to sign. I will try it.But are you really serious when you said that this article will be empty until maybe next year because there is nobody who has officially declared, then, this page is useless. See,we are again more Wikidedic than Wikipedia. Dont you know that in other page of Wikipedia, they have already a list there of Philippine Presidentiables, and they dont have a problem there because Chua, Howard, Bluemask, etc are not there. See, our extreme Wikipedism (more popish than the Pope) is delivering us into irrelevancy in the Philippine society. Lets not kid ourselves by hiding on Wikipedia ek-ek, lets be real, natural and common sensical203.177.60.221 (talk) 10:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes I'm serious, this article will be practically empty until mid-2008 or even up to the point when someone openly declares his/her candidacy. For example, 2010 NBA Playoffs is nonexistent, and Swedish general election, 2010 has some content, and it is completely sourced -- an opinion poll. I'm sure either SWS or Pulse Asia already has an opinion poll of this sort so it can be added here, as long as it's sourced. Any other "vote for my candidate" propaganda, speculation, etc. shouldn't be here. --HowardtheDuck10:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
At last you recognized that there are now presidentiables that can be printed. That is the kind of common sense the Philippines need - free from Wikipedic goobledygooks. Pwede pa rin pala tayo umasenso...wag lang tayong papasukan ng intellectual dishonesty. So, its turning out that the deleted previous article is not too bad afterall, in fact another page of Wikipedia has already published it, while here, we are still doing intellectual masterbation, so nothing has been moving so far, except our hackneyed opinions. 203.177.60.221 (talk) 11:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I guess the reason why it was removed is because it looked entirely fictional; you know, "my-candidate-is-better-than-yours" and "lets-maximize-the-publicity-Wikipedia-brings-to-my-favored-candidate-so-that-he'll-win" crap. Even this talk page is filled up with testimonials and recommendations, I thought was reading some blog.
I am not telling you the page, but Google might help you. I dont want Chua, Bluemask, you and me, and the rest, to go there and start wikipeding the article.Dont worry about my Tagalog, sometimes it will take a Tagalog word to knock the sense out of an intellectually dishonest Pinoy coconut hiding cowardly behind the Wikipedia bum - favored rules. 203.177.60.221 (talk) 11:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not here to play games (LOL), show me the page or that page never existed. What's "wikipeding"? As for Tagalog, there are other non-Pinoys who will loiter here and will be dumbfounded what you're saying. --HowardtheDuck11:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I suppose this means that while we we agree that 'presidentiables' can be identified, we also agree that citations are necessary? And that the article should adhere to NPOV? And that the article should be encyclopedic? Just clarifying what precisely is implied by "wikipeding"? Because those rules are all that's stopping this article from (potentially) being used to promote candidates. Also, does anyone have any suggestions regarding my earlier proposal that a list of election issues be developed, independent of the list of candidates? Alternativity (talk) 12:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Presidentiables or COMELEC - CERTIFIED Official Candidates...
So, while we Pinoy Wikipedians are now comfortable with each other and more relax in this discussion page, I guess we are still watching who will be the first one to write an article about a presidentiable in the article page. But the word presidentiable is an oxymoron. One is a presidentiable even if he will not run, does not intend to run and nobody is endorsing him to run. Are we gonna write for a presidentiable or somebody who has been declared by COMELEC to have filed a certificate of candidacy for presidency? I guess I am now putting more "preno", old Wikipedian habit cant just die like that so easily. Totidulay (talk) 15:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
We don't have to necessarily wait for the COMELEC... if a candidate openly declares his intention to run then it can be added here. --HowardtheDuck15:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, that's just Richard Gordon, thus far, that I know of. And to list Gordon and not list the others would be... well, strange, and quite possibly unfair. That's the downside of posting a presidentiable list so early - it'll be hard to make sure the candidates are evenly represented and that the article will be neutral. I believe I earlier proposed a three-category list? The first list (empty for now) would be COC-filed candidates; the second would be those that have announced their intent to run or announced that they're considering running, either to the media or to their parties; the third would be those identified by credible sources as likely contenders.
I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to find references for the more obvious ones (such as Roxas, Villar, and De Castro), although it may be a bit hard to find material for those that are quieter (Lacson and Pangilinan have kept mum as far as I know, biding their time... or am I wrong?)
The big question, I suppose, is, what do we define as a credible source? Suppose Nestor Torre writes a tongue-in-cheek Viewfinder column that lists three reasons why Nora Aunor should run for president, would that be sufficient reason for citing Nora Aunor as a presidentiable? (Not disparaging Mr Torre in any way, by the way... I think you get my point, folks?)
Thank you for the welcome, Alternativity. I am honored to be part of our Pinoy Wikipedians. Now that we are slowly getting closer and buddies, maybe, it is not too absurd if one day we have a bottle of beer or two, sing old songs like "An affair to Remember", or "A Certain Smile" in a videokee, (not "My Way", marami ng napaslang sa awit na yan). My house is open to all Pinoy Wikipedians. I would love to see Bluemask, Howard, Chua and the rest of the gang doing some old fashion Filipino inuman. My house is near the Shoe Museum and River Park in the Poblacion of Marikina. Wikipedia USA, I am sure, will be happy about it becuase we are creating a group...a critical mass, that could make a name in the Philippine society. No Tom Dick and Harry can bully us either, if we are united. We can have this page as our coordination point.Totidulay (talk) 03:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey! Now there's a brilliant idea. We can develop this all we want on WikiPilipinas and then integrate material here it achieves a certain level of verifiability and neutrality. I get the impression this is one of those situations WikiPilipinas was designed for, as Gus Vibal lamented. Wikipedia can be as academic as it wants to be, and WikiPilipinas as... er... chatty(???)/populist(???) as it wants to be. (Er... can someone here sum up the whole Wikipedia vs WikiPilipinas story for Totidulay, because Im still not sure I caught all of it. But basically, WikiPilipinas was put up as an alternative partly because its founder disagreed with the NPOV and Verifiability rules. (Tambayan peeps, Tama ba? Hehe. Ah, my friends, now that things have calmed down, I might be able to go back to being Wikibonked. hehehe.) Alternativity (talk) 05:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Bluemask. I wanna join the Tambayan. Just tell me how. Someday we could be more cohesive and share opportunities, connections and networkTotidulay (talk) 09:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Citation For Bayani Fernando and Noli De Castro as Presidentiables for LAKAS - CMD
Lakas wooing De Castro for 2010--party execs
MANILA, Philippines -- The ruling Lakas- Christian Muslim Democrats (CMD) is wooing Vice President Noli de Castro as a potential standard bearer in the 2010 presidential elections, two party officials disclosed on Tuesday.
In separate phone interviews, Lakas executive director Ray Roquero and legal counsel Raul Lambino confirmed to INQUIRER.net ongoing talks between Lakas leaders and the camp of De Castro.
"There are certain formal talks between the camps of the Vice President and the leaders of Lakas," Lambino said.
"If Noli [De Castro] will join us, he can be considered as frontrunner. Right now, he's independent," he said.
Roquero confirmed that de Castro's entry into Lakas is now being discussed, although he admitted he is not involved in the negotiations.
"Yes, nasa process na [it's being processed]. Pinag-uusapan [it's being discussed] but I'm not privy to the discussion," he said.
"He [De Castro] has been supportive of Lakas. Hindi nga lang siya nagkaroon ng formal entry sa Lakas pero parang adopted member siya [There never was a formal entry into Lakas but it is like he is an adopted member]. Lakas even supported his vice presidential candidacy," Roquero said.
Like Lambino, Roquero said he would not discount the possibility of De Castro being the party's bet for 2010, noting that many Lakas members have expressed their preference for him.
"Seeded na kasi si Noli [Noli is already seeded]. He's a heartbeat away from the presidency. May positional advantage na siya [He already has positional advantage]," he pointed out.
To ensure the next president will again come from Lakas, Roquero said Lakas will launch "a strategic planning conference to strengthen our party and launch a massive party buildup and recruitment drive," next month that "will be a long year activity."
In January, the party will hold its national convention, during which the names of potential candidates for the Senate, vice presidency and presidency might crop up, Roquero said.
"The target also is to retain control of Congress and win the presidency," he said.
Aside from De Castro, the other possible presidential contenders of Lakas is Metro Manila Development Authority chairman Bayani Fernando, Lambino and Roquero said.
Lambino said he is confident the next president of the Philippines will still come from Lakas.
"We are still the biggest political party. We are confident that when the reckoning period comes, Lakas would still be victorious in the forthcoming elections" he said.
( www.inquirer.net )
Lets hope that the other presidentiables should also present their citations.
With this development, I guess we can now restore the Deleted Article that caused the bruhaha in this discussion page, by simply adopting the style of Bluemask in this page that none of us had questioned: he put this:
, and made the list alphabetical, and put "citation needed" on those candidates that has not presented any citation in the discusssion page. I guess this is now the win-win solution among Pinoy Wikipedians. I am doing this in response to the call of unity among us.
Wikipedia is not a commercial site, it doesn't care for Google search dominance. What Wikipedia is after is to have accurate information. In this case, this is merely "a search", if either of the two expresses interest then it must be added. As of now, this article should be empty, aside from the SWS survey that was released a few weeks ago. --HowardtheDuck04:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Philippine Vice President Cant Be Listed Here as Potential President
According to Howard, the Philippine Vice President Noli de Castro can not be listed here.
He cant be listed here despite the fact that everyone knows that he is running. Despite the fact that the dominant party of the Philippines is grooming him to be the next president. (see the citation earlier).Despite the fact that he is qualified. Despite the fact that he got so many votes when he run for Senate and vice president.
Howard doesnt care about the public opinion as seen in the Google rating. Wikipedia, according to him is not a commercial site so, it doesnt care. Why is Wikipedia asking for donation if it doesnt care about public opinion?
Wikipedia is suppose to help the public in their needs for information and for that, they are soliciting donation.
When a college student search for probable presidentiable for 2010 as his political science assignment and went to wikipedia for information, nothing is here!
Why! Why! because a guy name Howard prevents everyone here from listing the presidentiables. And nobody dared to lift a finger to question this bum.
So, attention guys, if the current Vice President Noli de Castro,who was being put up by the dominant political party as their presidential candidate in 2010 was blocked by Howard the Bum from being listed here, how will the chances of Dick Gordon and Chiz Escudero from being listed here. Howard the Bum even justifies that people dont go to Wikipedia for good information anyway. Wow, Wikipedia USA, you are being bad mouthed by a bum. No one among us here can do anything about him. You have to go here to expell him.202.86.204.114 (talk) 04:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
How did you know I'm a bum? My boss will be angry! LOL.
Question: Did Noli de Castro acknowledge he's running? We can add Noli Boy whether or not he acknowledges it or not if you guys can retrieve that SWS survey of presidentiables. I've been looking for it but I can't find it. Then everyone on that list can be added. --HowardtheDuck04:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Some thoughts... On Wikipedia needing donations: Hehe. Wikipedia is asking for donations precisely so it won't HAVE to depend on ratings! :-D If it depended on ratings, you would find ADS here, not a call for donations. If it gets enough donations, it can indefinitely retain its academic nature. On Wikipedia as a reference: When I was teaching, I would never have accepted a research paper that cited Wikipedia. Just as I would never have accepted a research paper citing Collier's or Britannica. Why? Because you are not ordinarily supposed to use general reference materials as research citations. (Although I suppose I was an unusually strict research adviser. On finding a Noli Citation: Guys, guys, I remember now... I think there's one source we can use that cites all the presidentiables. There have been SWS surveys covering the elections already! And those, I believe include Noli. In fact, that list I think even has Joe de V as a presidentiable, although with low approval ratings. On Dick and Chiz: Dick is easily cited, as he has officially announced his interest in running. Your suggestion that Chiz might run caught me by surprise, though. I'm not sure there's a reference out there to support that yet. Last notes: Folks, I don't actually have time for this... so can anyone help me with searching for copies of those references I just identified? Also, let us please refrain from namecalling? I know our politics may not be very nice by nature, but that doesn't mean we can't be civil to each other, and hold on to our dignity, especially in an academic venue like Wikipedia.Alternativity (talk) 04:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Woohoo! Sources! Sources! Sources!
Folks (I keep saying "guys", but as there may be females here, would I be forgiven if I use "guys" to refer to all genders?), Okay, this is tentative but I do have two sources we can use. Let's add our references to the list here, ayt? Don't forget to sign your name by using four tildes (~~~~) after your entry. Alternativity (talk) 04:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Look folks, finding sources and making attributions isn't hard at all. The only real challenge is how to phrase the article so it remains credible/neutral.Alternativity (talk) 04:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
So it's Dick Gordon himself who owns this Blogspot? As for the opinion piece, it is still speculation, so it seems only Dick himself who'd get in... unless someone retrieves the SWS or Pulse Asia survey about the presidentiables. --HowardtheDuck04:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Nah. I had what, three minutes of free time to search for references in between subo during lunch? hehe. Soon I will have time to do more, but that might entail a day or two of not being part of this conversation while I organize my reference search. That's an official press release, though. I'll make time for looking for media coverage of this press release ASAP - I'm SURE the Inquirer had something, so no prob. As for the other source, I do have some questions:
If there's a citation from a credible source speculating on something, it wouldn't be NOR, right? I figure if a certified Political Analyst or a member of the National Media speculated something, it may be okay to put in the article provided it's identified as that person's speculation. After all, Paleontologists can only speculate on what killed the Dinosaurs, with the Meteor being only the best of several viable guesses.
So I guess it's a matter of how we define "credible source." Do we require a main section article (as opposed to, say, Showbiz) from the National Media, and do we require a degree in political science from "political scientists"?
Sigh. Somebody had better find that SWS survey already.
I still think we shouldn't allow this election to be dominated by personality. And I still think this article should focus on issues, not candidates. I wish our party system had more credibility, but everybody seems to be sucumbing to petty personality politics. This article would not be helpful if I wanted to vote for cutting carbon emissions, or North Luzon infrastructure development. :-S Alternativity (talk) 05:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
We really can't do anything about personality-politics, it reigns supreme over here. What we can do is to avoid these speculations, for example, what if only a few of these would run for president after all, then we would've wasted our time and energy on the sentence "<Candidate X> was originally seen as a candidate by <speculator> but deferred." The Dino-meteor theory has been around for a long time while these speculations would be gone once 2009 ends.--HowardtheDuck05:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Regarding not being able to do anything to combat personality politics, I disagree, but not as much as you think. Hehe. I do agree that there's very little we can do about it on Wikipedia. I'm planning an online campaign to promote issues-based voting, but this is not the venue to discuss that. I'll blog and post a link. As for your argument against speculation, I do agree you have very valid points.Alternativity (talk) 05:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I must confess I haven't really started looking. But I'm pretty sure that SWS survey won't show up as an SWS survey (Meaning you won't find an official press release). I do remember news articles covering it, though. That's kind of why I haven't looked yet. I'm not sure a general googling will be good enough. I'm planning to trawl inquirer.net instead.Alternativity (talk) 10:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh-oh. I see what you mean. As it turns out, what we've been referring to are the Satisfaction ratings of top level government officials. The thing is, except for Eddie Villanueva, the list is probably almost identical to that of Presidentiable prefference. I think I must have either read implications into the report, or the reporter/columnist I read did some speculating. I'll keep trawling for references, though.Alternativity (talk) 10:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
No, actually I'm pretty sure they've released election "ratings" already. Dunno if they did already or if it was the survey you've found. --HowardtheDuck12:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Almost got it, but not quite. It seems there was was a Pulse Asia survey that covered this, somewhere near the date Sep 07, 2007 1:14 am. That's when someone posted on the Escudero message board that Escudero was ranked #2 among answers to the question "if all of them could for the presidency, who would you vote for on this list in the coming 2010?" However, I'm only able to access the google search results, because the message board (i think) requires MB membership (I'm not going that far to get the data). That means I cant find the original reference. :-S Will keep trawling. This should give us a search timeframe, though.Alternativity (talk) 15:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
We have a link: [5] I might do this tomorrow or later depending if I get sleepy... --HowardtheDuck 17:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC) Scratch that, this survey is very elusive; it seems it only appeared on the Chiz message board. --HowardtheDuck17:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Yup. You found the same thing I did. I think the funding for the survey must have come from either a media organization or one of the campaigns. Hence its exclusivity.Alternativity (talk) 05:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
So, we can not also rely on surveys because they are usually slanted on the one who paid for it. You know guys, we have to think managerial about this. Know our objective: bring information about the presidentiables to the public ASAP.If we agree on this objective, then, we are almost at the verge of getting the solution.
The solution is already written here, if we will just look for it...somewhere above... that goes like this:
With this development, I guess we can now restore the Deleted Article that caused the bruhaha in this discussion page, by simply adopting the style of Bluemask in this discussion page that none of us had questioned anyway: he put this:
, and made the list alphabetical, and put "citation needed" on those candidates that has not presented any citation in the discusssion page. I guess this is now the win-win solution among Pinoy Wikipedians. I am doing this in response to the call of unity among us.
IF YOU WILL STILL TRY FIND MORE "PRENO" TO THIS, "MAS MALAKAS TALAGA ANG PRENO KESA MAKINA" in this page, so we will not end up writing anything here. Let just wait for the 2010 elections and write about the result.203.177.60.221 (talk) 11:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Stop the crappy preno-makina analogy, and speak English, this is the English Wikipedia. If anyone speaks any more non-English words, I'll remove it myself.
We can't rely on surveys? Then we can't rely on columnists, too. If I'd choose between columnists and surveys, I'd pick surveys. Just mention where it came from and who commissioned it.
Restoration of the deleted article is not feasible, even if you add a dozen {{unreferenced}} tags since it can't be referenced for now. In a year we can add those, Wikipedia doesn't have deadlines.
I'm not asking you people for wait for the results, I'm asking for you people to wait until the latest survey or until someone says "I'm running."
Hey bum, you sound very confident again ha. If we wait for everyone to categorically declare that they are running, it will be before they file in the COMELEC. By then, this Wikipedia article becomes irrelevant. Think managerial bum. We want to make Wikipedia relevant. We still remember that you badmouthed Wikipedia and you are still here.203.177.60.221 (talk) 12:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
No, they don't have to file at the COMELEC, they can announce it via a press release/conference/interview. We don't have to be all legal and stuff. For example, if Noli declares tomorrow he'd run, then he will be added here. We won't have to wait for the COMELEC, it will be foolish to wait for that. The campaign period doesn't begin until late 2009. By late 2008 candidates are now positioning themselves already.
Bum, you are the preno (for non-English speakers, this means the brake --HowardtheDuck), we are the makina (machine --HowardtheDuck). You are really determined to have it your way to the point that you can even bad mouth our host, the Wikipedia, just to have it your way.
We are writing here Presidentiables and not Declared Official Candidates.Let me reprint here the definition of presidentiable:One is a presidentiable even if he will not run, does not intend to run and nobody is endorsing him to run.So, whats the big deal? Its only presidentiable, you -----. Think managerial, bum. Think Wikipedia. you still dont get it,do you?.Bluemask is correct.203.177.60.221 (talk) 13:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
You know why I came to this page? it's because this page was complete trash, lots of cleanup tags, unreferenced sections etc. I'd rather have an empty article than a long but trashy article. I'd rather be the brake if the vehicle needs to wade through the traffic carefully.
And there is really actually nothing to say for the 2010 presidential election yet, that's why this article is empty.
P.S.: Presidentiable doesn't appear in any dictionary. "Presidentiable" only appears in the Philippine context. If this was WikiPilipinas, it can be done, but this is the English Wikipedia, we'd have to have at least a sense of decency and accuracy and not just throw around speculations. --HowardtheDuck13:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, HowardtheDuck, I agree with you. The word PRESIDENTIABLE and SENATORIABLE are made in the Philippines. Later, we might come up with CONGRESSIONABLE, GOVERNORABLE, MAYORABLE, COUNCILORABLE, BARANGAY CAPTAINABLE, etc. For my part, as what I had been repeating, I must admit that I am currently campaigning to let Sen. Mar Roxas run for President[6] and [7] but I also acknowledge that now is not yet the time to post the "speculated" potential presidential candidates. Maybe, we can wait for some time until whoever publicly says the he/she's running for that office. After all, an encyclopedia is a book of facts not speculations. I would also like to apologize for creating this table of potential presidential and vice presidential candidates. It's my fault. I now realized that we should hurry on this matter. 2010 is still 2 years and a half to go as what Sen. Mar Roxas says, and who knows what would happen now up to 2010.
But also, I would like to ask the Filipino Wikipedians on their views on these following articles which could guide us in future creation of articles related to future elections:
I don't think we need to wait until the official declarations come in because I think a valid source will come up long before then. As of now, the way I see it, the only problem is that we're having trouble finding that source. The moment a credible source comes up with a list of likely candidates, you'll find, I think, that any objections to a well-written list will disappear. By credible source, I mean sources in a position to accurately gauge the electability of candidates (SWS and Pulse Asia being the most likely to speak up early, it seems). By well-written list I mean one that does not give advantage to one candidate. The truth is, we are all waiting with bated breath because we all know how important 2010 will be. It could quite easily make or break the third republic. To me, that's as good a reason as any for making sure that an academic venue like this remains as neutral as possible for as long as possible.Alternativity (talk) 03:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Now that the two main protagonists have met..the one that started the article and the one that deleted it...and after protracted debates that have seen the best and worst of Pinoy Wikipedians. Let us give ourselves a break.
As a postcript, let us say goodbye to an article that have created hopes to lots of us.. that made us realize that Philippines has something to look forward to after an Erap-GMA quagmire. Lets say goodbye to an article that created lots of interests among different political camps as seen in Google rating only to be killed the next day. We all know our partcipation in the birth and death of this article which could have made an influence in the shaping of our nation.
Meantime, I really still hope that we Pinoy Wikipdians can still have a nice brotherly relationship, an inuman session in my house is still an open invitation. I just dont know where do we coordinate when this article will be pronounced dead.Totidulay (talk) 03:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand about this life-death thing. After all, Wikipedia does not care about Google ratings, it doesn't have ads anyway so even if it has high "Google ratings" it doesn't matter. It won't earn from "Google ratings."
As for "death", I'd say this article is like Jamie Lynn Spears's unborn child. It is three years from 2010 and to proclaim the "death" of an article whose subject is 3 years from now is immensely funny. You people can always add info when it becomes available; adding information when it can't be cited goes against the tenets of Wikipedia. --HowardtheDuck03:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, "Google ratings" don't matter. Wikipedia is a different avenue. Let's just wait when the time comes that someone (perhaps not even the potential presidential candidates) would declare their intention to run for the presidency. Mr. Totidulay, I know that you have the passion in supporting Chairman Bayani Fernando as the next President of the Philippines come 2010, and I do also have a passion in supporting Sen. Mar Roxas as the next President of the Philippines. But we should be reminded that, "although some contributors are authorities in their field, Wikipedia requires that even their contributions be supported by published and verifiable sources." We should not "influence the presentation of an article in a biased way" and instead let us keep "insisting on a neutral point of view" on every article. I hope we can finally rest this case as we are all Pinoys. Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to all! -- Kevin Ray (talk) 05:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year too, Kevin. Sorry for late reply, busy with the holiday. I am bother by the Anti-Chinoy comment of your "friends" from the Roxas Camp. I have lots of friends from the LP and I know Senator Roxas will not tolerate that Anti - Chinese comment. I feel offended too, just like you, because my wife is a Chinese mestiza and all my three children are chinitas and chinito.Dont worry about your enemies from the Roxas Camp and I think you have explained your point well already. If ever they push you further, WE, from the BAYANI FERNANDO FOR PRESIDENT community will always welcome you and all the other Chinoys like you who are equally discriminated. In fact, a lot of us wanted to join the call of Senator Pimentel against a movie outfit who discrinated our brother BISAYANS. MMDA Chairman Bayani Fernando will not tolerate any form of discrination to any Filipino, he will fight for all of us...that is why in Marikina, we have a Rehiyon Rehiyon Annual Celebration to welcome our brothers from the different provinces.Pag nag inuman tayong mga Pinoy Wikipedians sa bahay ko sa Marikina, you will see how good Marikina is and perhaps, deep in your heart, you will realize that Bayani Fernando should be the next President. Regards to everyone.Totidulay (talk) 18:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I am forseeing the fact that this article could be vandalized, especially by anonymous users who are supportive of certain candiates (like Manny Villar, Mar Roxas, etc.). If there is a Filipino Wikipedian who is an admin (wtf?), he or she should semi-protect this article against possible vandalism, similar to this article. iaNLOPEZ1115 (talk) 11:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, calibrative preemptive response isn't a Wikipedia guideline, admins only protect articles when the vandalism begins. It's easy to revert anyway. --HowardtheDuck12:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
We should place these persons with intentions in the article. FVR has not declared personally but it was his Press secretary Ed Malay who told the media that if Erap will be running in 2010, FVR might. Noli didn't declared his intention. The media made a mistake. He only said that he's thinking of running for president and not having a real intention on it as of this time. -- Kevin Ray (talk) 05:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
You know what, I think we should wait for a month, these people might backtrack ("clarify") on their intentions for 2010. --HowardtheDuck06:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Howard, wait for a while because these people might backtract. For that matter, we should start writing the article until we consider all the "prenos" that were brought here, as follows:
1. Please do not restore this list unless you can back it up with verifiable information from reliable sources. --bluemask (talk). That means , we have to go into the process of verification, and the process should be acceptable to the academic community. It must have all the elements of scientific methods.
2. Just a note: not all uncited statements get slapped with a {{Fact}} tag, they may will removed if it is impossible to cite them. --Howard the Duck 13:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC).
That means, we should be strict with the citation, anyone without citation should not be included, and the citations should be on peer reviewed journals.
3.Can we focus on how to re-create a good Wikipedia article rather that debating on who will be best candidate? --bluemask (talk) 04:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC). Therefore, any article that seems to say that my candidate is better than yours should not be allowed. A committee should be formed to determine the intent of every article.
4.Every entry in any one of these categories should be verifiable, meaning every entry should cite its sources. I am actually in favor of limiting that list to a list of names (and possibly the dates when the candidate announced his intent), with any discussion of the candidate's performance and platform being covered by a different article. (I'm having trouble thinking up a name for such, though.) Thoughts? Alternativity (talk) 05:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC). Self explanatory.
5.People, lets use our common sense. No candidate has expressed his intention to run for president now; nor is the clamor for any candidate to run by the people is well-documented. So naturally, this article will be empty FOR NOW. Wikipedia is not used for propaganda purposes, it is used to document information. 2007 is just ending and the 2007 winners haven't even finished half of their first year. --Howard the Duck 10:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC). In other words, expect this article to be empty.
6.The big question, I suppose, is, what do we define as a credible source? Suppose Nestor Torre writes a tongue-in-cheek Viewfinder column that lists three reasons why Nora Aunor should run for president, would that be sufficient reason for citing Nora Aunor as a presidentiable? (Not disparaging Mr Torre in any way, by the way... I think you get my point, folks?). therefore, it is suggested that we organized another committee to determne if the one who said about a certain candidate is credible or not.
7.Wikipedia is not a commercial site, it doesn't care for Google search dominance. What Wikipedia is after is to have accurate information. In this case, this is merely "a search", if either of the two expresses interest then it must be added. As of now, this article should be empty, aside from the SWS survey that was released a few weeks ago. --Howard the Duck 04:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC). We should organize another committee to determine if there was really a survey done as stated here.
8.Dick Cheney's the American VP, yet he's not running for President.
So if Ricky Lo endorses Nora Aunor as presidential candidate, we'd ought to add it too.
Such is the irony of Wikipedia. --Howard the Duck 03:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
And trust me, I am a political science graduate and I won't use Wikipedia for things such as this. --Howard the Duck 03:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC) . Another committee should be organized to find out whether wikipedia is really useless; and why the hell are we spending too much time on this.
9. Davidcannon (talk) it's been decided on the talk page that this article should be "empty") (undo). That means, we have to have a general assembly, determine the legitimacy of each delegate, elect a congress chairman, put into motion whether to put this article or not. Divide the house, have each one a time to explain his point, hear rebuttals, and finally, cast the vote, count it, and declare the winner. A committe should also be organized to find out whether Garci was present during the counting.
There are other "prenos" in the article that I was not able to include, sorry, lack of material time.
But to sum all these: Wikipedia will not be able to come up with this article until the election is over and this somewhat confirm what Howard the Bum said: that wikipedia is useless, courtesy of the "preno" experts round here.202.86.204.114 (talk) 01:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
If this article will come out after the election, or very near the election, then it is useless in helping the Filipino public in deciding whom to vote because the information did not come on time to help in the decision process.Maybe that is the context of Howard. But the way I see it, I think it is really hard to write this article becuase the writer will have to consider a lot of things and he is not even being paid for it.122.53.111.206 (talk) 13:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
So? Wikipedia is not an advocacy tool. This particular article is not a means to help voters decide whom to vote. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia: it documents. It is not a campaign website, it is not a voters' information guide, it is not a news website. --seav (talk) 02:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Crystal clear. Wikipedia has so many limitations...as stated by the number of nots that you mentioned. It has so many limitations compared to the wide latitute it projects in asking for donations from the public.I hope your personal opinion is not a disservice to Wikipedia.Anyway, both of us know that you and I, cant do anything about the situation that in this page...the "preno" is stronger than the "makina". My personal opinion for wikipedia is kinder than yours. For me,Wikipedia is a highly respected medium and it can influence other people and it deserve to be supported, please agree with me on this.122.53.111.206 (talk) 07:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Obviously, I concur. Hehe. As I've pointed out, below. I contribute to Wikipedia because I find it very useful. I believe the same is true of most people who browse Wikipedia, a free online academic reference which has to retain certain standards of veracity and verifiability to retain its usefulness as such. ---> Chopped liver, aka Alternativity (talk) 09:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Sigh. If this convoluted conversation has convinced me of anything as a voter, it's that our nation seriously needs to learn to get past personality politics. I was planning to vote for someone one of the people in this conversation was supporting, but now, I think I will simply vote for sustainable education reform. Rest assured, I will be taking a close look at Philippine Education policy and implementation until 2010. I will be looking for sources and I will be adding whatever I find to the appropriate articles on Wikipedia, whether it be the performance of DECS officials or whether certain senators supported the UP Charter. I'm thankful to this conversation for reminding me that names and personalities just get in the way of informed decision making regarding one's vote. And I'm thankful that Wikipedia provides me with an opportunity to find fully verifiable information free of bias. Does anybody want to help me to put up legislative voting records on the pages of all the members of the 13th and 12th senate?Alternativity (talk) 10:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Please invite all the "prenos" in this page to join you. Im sure that you will not be able to come up with any article because you bums cant even give added facts and information to an artcle. All you can do is to give "prenos" of hackneyed opinions, and the irony is that you feel so superior about it...your being useless bum/preno. As a Russian proverbs says,"Its the child that works who gets the spanking." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.86.204.114 (talk) 08:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Let's just wait until they declare there candidacies. We are not even sure if they stay in there respective parties. You know na, Philippine politics has many butterflies, moths, manananggals and even flying voters. Intentions after all are just to test the waters! It doesn't mean that we have to wait up to 2010. We should bear in mind that before we publish anything here, we assure the readers of this article that what they are reading is free from any kind of bias. After all, Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. Students might use this as one of there general reference. Remember, Wikipedia is a different place. It's not a voters' education site that you can help readers choose on who would be their bet in 2010 or a presidentiables fan site that we put the rumored presidentiables here. 2010 is still 2 years away. I can even wait for the sake of the neutrality of this article even if I am supporting Mar Roxas for Philippines in 2010.-- Kevin Ray (talk) 13:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Kevin, pare, musta? I can also wait. Although I must admit that I am proud to be a "Makina" as Howard is proud of being a "Preno" in this page. We from Marikina believes in the slogan of Bayani Fernando: "BF GETS IT DONE". That is why, I am even willing to settle for the reprinting of the original article sana, and lets improve it along the way. That is the spirit of Wikipedia anyway, that is why they allow the public to edit little by little, along the way. Also, I believe that Wikipedia do care for its Google ratings, everyone does.Also, I believe that Wikipedia wants to help the public do their informed choice that is why they never worry about asking the public for donation in return. We must really think managerial about this whole thing.Greetings to all Pinoy Wikipedians.Totidulay (talk) 18:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is useful as an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is only useful if it retains the high standards of an encyclopedia. When an attempt is made to make it "useful" for anything else, it ceases to be useful as an encyclopedia. Wikipedia would then be useless. To quote WP:NOT
Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia and, as a means to that end, an online community of people interested in building a high-quality encyclopedia in a spirit of mutual respect. Therefore, there are certain things that Wikipedia is not.
I believe all Wikipedia editors would find the rest of that article enlightening. Let me link to it again: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. I contribute to Wikipedia because I find it very useful. I believe the same is true of most people who browse Wikipedia, a free online academic reference. Thank you. Alternativity (talk) 04:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
7VE§v§§o§VOQ§xqxOxˆQ††x†2†ˆ@¶== Original Article Restored ==
Thanks Kevin for restoring the original article, even though its in the discussion page only.Lets just improve it along the way. Now we are moving forward.122.53.98.176 (talk) 15:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I was the one who created the table and Howard the Duck erased. I'm not saying that Howard should be reprimanded. I should have been the one. I was too excited for the 2010 elections. Pure speculations of potential presidential candidates is not a business of Wikipedia. We should be basing on facts and sources, not just mere hearsays. By placing back the table, we can easily see where did we went wrong so that we can make amends on it. I hope we can, once and for all, put this case into rest. I'm sick of debating this already! -- Kevin Ray (talk) 05:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Hm... I've been thinking for a while... If we want this article to be comprehensive while retaining its neutrality... Should we expand the article to reflect the whole National Ballot? Also, I do like the idea of this page documenting the process of getting to the election, as the abovementioned wiki does. This also gives us what I think is a decent compromise - while we cannot yet speculate on individuals, we can verifiably identify existing political parties, and cite their ongoing preparations for the elections as parties. Alternativity (talk) 12:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Don't worry, the presidential race will inevitably split off to a new Philippine presidential election, 2010 article, and perhaps several other campaign pages a la Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 once the campaign heats up. Come on, lets face it, all of the news today, and perhaps for the whole 2008 is just speculation and will be removed once the candidates were to be known by 2009. As I've said, I'd rather be the break to keep this article clean than a machine to make the article dirty. --HowardtheDuck13:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
So, it was TheCoffee who removed it. And where is that!!!!#@!!! guy when all of us here went almost into a blow figuring out what to do. I would say that was a very irresponsible act.122.53.98.176 (talk) 03:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
May we suggest that Howard the Bum write a new article about presidentiable and let us see if the artcle is better. If the article is also a thrash, then he is not only a preno, he is also a basura. He is a good for nothin' bum.202.86.204.114 (talk) 02:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Kevin, hi Howard , hi Negativity and hi to all fellow Pinoy Wikipedians.What if we put the article of Kevin in the article page? Who do you think will not allow it? ... so, we could really move slowly but surely into coming up with an aticle.01:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Totidulay (talk • contribs)
I think the article can be restored in the Article Page since no one is objecting already. At last, this discussion page has reached a consensus. Its indeed a humble but doable start to come up with the artticle.202.86.204.114 (talk) 05:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi fellow Pinoy wikipedians. So, among 8 or 10 of us here, one objected of the move to print Kevin's article in the Article Page. If Howard can convince the majority of us to abide with his objection, then Howard wins.Parliamentary procedure. We have to do it this way, parliamentary procedure is democratic because there are contending forces here, for us to have a humble atart, at least. I personally understand Howard, maybe he is writing another article. Lets us wait for that article. Lets give him enough time, like one month from now for him to finish his aticle. If he is finished, we invite him to post it here in the discussion page for us to vote which one is better...Howard article or Kevin's article. The one that will get the majority vote will be posted in the discussion page. Howard is visibly hurt with lots of bad words thrown on him on this page. After he was quoted badmouthing Wikipedia, the Wikipedia loyalists among us started calling Howard a "Bum", a "Preno" and a "Basura". I am now alarmed because if he is really a "basura", he is now a concern of MMDA.hehehehe.Regards to all.Totidulay (talk) 22:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
No Return.Alternativity (talk) 10:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC) here. I may be convinced to concede to the addition of a table listing the major PARTIES involved in 2010, but not one alleging the presidential ambitions of people who have not yet made a formal announcement of their intent. Again, to quote the English Wikipedia editing guideline Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion,
Wikipedia decisions are not made by popular vote, but rather through discussions by reasonable people working towards consensus. Polling is only meant to facilitate discussion, and should be used with care.
Potential problems with voting include:
1. You might miss the best solution (or the best compromise) because it wasn't one of the options. This is especially problematic when there are several issues at hand.
2. By polarizing discussion and raising the stakes, voting may contribute to a breakdown in civility and make it difficult for participants to assume good faith. A vote on a controversial issue is often extremely acrimonious.
3. Voters often expect that a majority or supermajority will automatically win the argument, or that the result will be binding — which is not the case.
4. Even when a straw poll is stated to be non-binding, sometimes people decide afterwards that they should nevertheless do what the majority wants, in effect retroactively treating the straw poll result as binding. While it is reasonable to ask other editors to consider majority opinion during the course of the debate, no straw poll may ever be used to force minority opinion editors to accept a majority opinion.
5. If Wikipedia were to resolve issues through voting on them, people would be tempted to also use voting with respect to articles. People have been known to call a vote on whether or not a fact is true. We include text in articles based on such policies as verifiability and encyclopedicity, not based on whether the text is popular among voters.
