User talk:Howard the Duck/Archive1

Do not edit or modify this page. If you will reply to an archived discussion, bring it up on the user talk page

Howard the Duck is awarded this Barnstar for his excellent work on List of Presidents of the Philippines and other articles. —Nino Gonzales 09:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Filipino contributor

You may be interested in Category:Filipino Wikipedians and Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines. :) Coffee 07:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rudy Fernandez (triathlete)

can i place back the info in the background section but I'll just re-edit it...to avoid copyright vio...thanx..Padillo (UTC)

sure. just don't copy word-by-word. Howard the Duck

2006 Philippines coup

Good job! I hope you still monitor that article. Thanks! Darth Narutorious 14:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Howard the Duck

Your work is highly appreciated.--Folksong 06:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your concern about that article. Just keep on reacting! See you on the talk page! -- Darth Narutorious 16:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You deleted most of the Hale (band) article because it is apparently too much like a fan site. Unfortunately, the deleted sections are informative and share valuable information about the band's roots, influences, and stlyes. I've restored the deleted sections. Please reword the sections if you feel they are too propagandistic, but don't delete them all together, please. --Malecasta 11:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

University of the Philippines

Hi, Howard. It's great to see your wonderful contributions.

However, I deleted most of your comments regarding the University of the Philippines because some of the comments may arise further conflict between U.P. and U.S.T. fanatics.

Some U.P. alumni may take offense at the insertion of the "Catholic University of the Philippines" on top of the page because they consider religion a sensitive issue in relation to U.P.'s secular character as a national institution.

As we learn from The Five Pillars of Wikipedia:

"Wikipedia....is also not the place to insert your own opinions, experiences, or arguments — all editors must follow our no original research policy. All editors must strive for accuracy...When a conflict arises as to which version is the most neutral, declare a cool-down period and tag the article as disputed; hammer out details on the talk page and follow dispute resolution."

I have no problems about what you had written. But personal comments ("U.P...home...to the most notorious..") may incite divisiveness among Filipinos from both U.P. and U.S.T.. It would be best to reflect the best of our respective institutions instead of touching on the lapses. After all, all universities have produced great and not-so-great people.

Thanks for your concern. And good luck on your many wonderful endeavors. --7258 19:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but would accept my other contributions? Like the removal of the <p> HTML tag? Also, perhaps the "notorious" word need to be reworded. I accept that "notorious" may not be the best word to use. However, in keeping up with the NPOV policy, we have to include that U.P. did not only produce the brightest but perhaps other not-so-great Filipinos. Howard the Duck | talk, 11:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to do so. No problem with me. My only reservation is that your good intentions may be misinterpreted as an aside coming from U.S.T. Just trying to avoid any possible conflict. Objectively, you are right. But Filipinos are too sensitive about the schools where they come from. We might end up contributors downplaying each other's universities by nitpicking. Each school may end up with tirades coming from students and alumni of the other universities. All universities have good and bad alumni. But you can try again by rewording/ rephrasing. Then let's see how it goes and take it from there. Thanks. --7258 20:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I have edited the UP article already, and added a little note (on UP-Diliman) at the top of the page. About notorious, don't get me wrong, but I also left out "the brightest", to balance "notorious." However, since "notorious" is a word that provokes emotion, I suggest to devise a new phrase to highlight that yes, UP produces "the brightest," but it also produces some of the worst. On the Catholic University part, perhaps it can be added at the bottom of the page? Because in effect there are two Universities of the Philippines: the State and the Catholic (UST). What are your thoughts? Howard the Duck | talk, 16:05, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Astig

Galing pare.--Nino Gonzales 09:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ya pare, left you a star in your userpage, --Noypi380 13:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nino and Noypi! :) Howard the Duck | talk, 03:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Presidents of the Philippines

Hi Howard, it is great to see that you already did the List of Presidents of the Philippines formatted like the List of U.S. Presidents. I would just like to contribute some of my knowledge for the color-coding of each president by their political parties.

Historically, by media, Nacionalista Party is color green while Liberal Party is yellow. I would prefer Red on Marcos' New Republic (Bagong Lipunan era and the 4th Republic) because it is the campaign color of Marcos during those times under Kilusang Bagong Lipunan (KBL). Aquino is deep yellow. Ramos on the other hand can use yellow or blue, even for Arroyo, the colors of Lakas-CMD. And Estrada's color is really orange, maybe a little deep orange will do. Thank you very much and much kudos! Glenncando 66.8.182.227 09:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you learn something new everyday. However, as much as I would like to believe you, it'll be good if we verify this first, or if it can't be verified, as least have a discussion at the article's talk page. About Marcos, though, that means I'd have to split his number column into two (one green and one red). What do you think? --Howard the Duck | talk, 09:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll be changing the colors, shouldn't be a big deal, I guess. --Howard the Duck | talk, 12:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I already saw the changes and it was great! By the way, President Jose P. Laurel's political party when he is serving as president of the Second Republic -- Japanese-sponsored Republic, is KALIBAPI or the Kapisanan sa Paglilingkod sa Bagong Pilipinas --Glenncando | talk

Thanks. But from I've understood, KALIBAPI wasn't strictly a political party. It was more of an non-political organization. --Howard the Duck | talk, 13:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UNIDO

I already made an article about UNIDO -- United Nationalists Democratic Organizations, the party of Cory Aquino and Doy Laurel during the 1986 Snap elections. Just view the article for proof reading or any other informations that you can add. Thanks. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glenncando (talk • contribs)

RP First Ladies Project

Hi. Can we have a new project about the First Ladies/Spouses of the Philippines patterned with the US First Lady articles? Here are the list of our first ladies to be researched:

Hilaria del Rosario Aguinaldo (1877-1921)
Aurora Aragon Quezon (1888-1949)
Pacencia Hidalgo Laurel (1889-1960)
Esperanza Limjap Osmeña (1896-1978)
Trinidad de Leon Roxas (1900-1995)
Victoria Syquia Quirino (1931-present) "First daughter" -- escort to President Elpidio Quirino
Luz Banzon Magsaysay (1915-2004)
Leonila Dimataga Garcia (1906-1994)
Evangelina Macaraeg Macapagal (1915-1999)
Imelda Romualdez Marcos (1929-present)
Benigno Simeon Aquino Jr. (1932-1983) -- never did serve officially as First Gentleman
Amelita Martinez Ramos
Luisa Pimentel Ejercito Estrada
Jose Miguel Tuason Arroyo -- current First Gentleman of the Philippines

Thanks. And I hope to be a part of this proposed wiki-project. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glenncando (talk • contribs)

This'll be a lot tougher as only a few resources on the net exist, especially for public domain pictures. --Howard the Duck | talk, 02:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note. Vicky Quirino was not "first daughter" (no such reference at the time, and generally, not used during the 3rd Republic -president's children were simply children of the president). She was really and actually the First Lady (refer to the "Official Week in Revue" section of the Official Gazette of the time). She was First Lady because she served as official hostess (not escort, which has a negative connotation today and was never the appropriate term for the role) for her father. By the way, compliments on your list of Presidents, it's so well done. Gareon 14:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help me?

Hello...

Can you help me discuss with this anynonymous user? He was beginning to become a rogue and he was annoying me. He even left his e-mail address (darkatanna07@yahoo.com). I've already sent him my reply, but to make sure, can you help me giving the "hard and fast" rules in Wikipedia to this guy? Here's his message:

Bakit ba Ikaw Alis Mo Yung Scedule Ng Hero Tv Sa Wikipedia Ikaw ba Nanadya Kb At Gusto ko Lang Ayusin Yung Hero Tv Pati Mga Shows nito no At Pati ba Naman Izumo At Musumet Hindi Sa Ako nakiki Pag away Sa Iyo ang gusto ko lang ay maging No# 1 Ang Hero Tv laban sa A_I_M_X no At Maging Best Anime Channel No at parang kampi sa kalaban no pansin ko lang sa iyo at gusto lang naman gawa yung business mo ay gawin mo at yung sa akin ay gawa ko din ok ba sa iyo at tapos ang problema no ok ba saiyo yun.

-上村七美 | talk 12:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can think of two violations: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and Wikipedia:No personal attacks.

You can slap the anon's talkpage with the templates displayed at Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace. Usually, the anons get tired, especially if the page becomes protected.

Also the anon uses InterIslandNet3 ISP, I'm still investigating on his/her Yahoo account. --Howard the Duck | talk, 12:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-Can you back me up when he replies to my e-mails (he sent the same message to all of my addresses). I think he becomes active only at between 1 and 5 am. - 上村七美 | talk 15:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How's that? Unfortunately, I'll be offline in the wee hours of the morning. Or you can forward to me his messages or paste them here. Also, you can ask for more advice at Tambayan Philippines --Howard the Duck | talk, 15:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just send his reply to you. I'll be offline at the wee hours of the morning, too (unless it is Saturday after PBB Eviction Night, which I stay up until 1am Sunday). Maybe we can do something about him. I'm also sure that the anon user is also Henry01 because the subject of his e-mails contains it, too. (And his peskiness) - 上村七美 | talk 15:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can warn him about the three-revert rule. If he becomes really unruly, you can request him to be blocked at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. However, if he doesn't log in and has dynamic IP, its futile. --Howard the Duck | talk, 02:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know that. So far, I haven't received his reply, but I'll continue to be vigilant about this guy. I'll tell you what happens. - 上村七美 | talk 14:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Map of Zamboanga City on the City's infobox

Howard, the map that you changed in Zamboanga City's infobox (Ph locator zamboanga del sur zamboanga.png) is misleading. Zamboanga City now has nothing to do with Zamboanga del Sur province, and we Zamboangeños do not want to associate ourselves with the province even if the province wants to associate itself to us and our Ciudad de Flores.

Kindly visit zamboanga.com's website and have a look at its front page. We find that map insulting. I am again taking that off, if you don't mind, and I'm again taking that of "formerly Zamboanga del Sur" line since that information is no longer relevant, not even significant. No Zamboangeños are interested in Zamboanga City's association with the del sur province in the past as far as we are concerned today. Gracias.

--Weekeejames 05:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

However, the new map does not state where in the world Zamboanga City is. It is a local map. It doesn't even add locales outside the city. I'd contact Coffee to create a map that says Zamboanga City is an independent city. Davao City is not a part of Davao del Sur but the its map shows it is included. --Howard the Duck | talk, 05:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article is "already giving us a clue" where in the world Zamboanga City is. I have added the sub heading "location" to describe where in the world Zamboanga City is; The map that you again changed NEITHER states where in the world Zamboanga City is. It is a regional map. Now if our purpose is to "state where in the world Zamboanga City is" with a map, then we might as well put the whole atlas map of the world! I resent your putting back that misleading map, and again I reiterate, we strongly find that map insulting, impertinent, and an attack on the sovereignity of our chartered city. I fervently hope that you change that map immediately. No pun intended, but I do not care about Davao, Davao del Sur and its map in this particular issue. --Weekeejames 07:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The new map shows were in the world Zamboanga City is. It is a regional map, yes, but it is way better than a local map. Why don't we transfer this to Talk:Zamboanga City? --Howard the Duck | talk, 07:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No it does NOT. Your map does not say where the Zamboanga Peninsula is in which of the world's continents. As I said, you might as well put a world atlas if that is your purpose. We certainly find that map that you keep on changing as desperate, thick and low. And as an added insult to injury, that insignificant and irrelevant line in the infobox saying Zamboanga City formerly belonged to the del sur province. FYI, this is a sensitive issue as far as we, Zamboangeños, are concerned. If you insist, I suggest you rather write a political jurisdiction subsection under Zamboanga City's history section where you can give emphasis to your insistence. --Weekeejames 07:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest lets take to Talk:Zamboanga City. I'm about to post something there. Thanks. --Howard the Duck | talk, 07:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have reservations in showing Zamboanga City apart from its mother province Zamboanga del Sur. I guess for the resolution of this issue, the following points would have to be considered:

It is true that highly urbanized cities are independent from their mother province, this is affirmed by Section 29 of the Local Government Code which provides that: Highly urbanized cities and independent component cities shall be independent of the province. No legislation of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan can be made applicable to them, and residents of the highly urbanized cities do not vote for provincial officials.

The Local Government Code of 1991 provides (Chapter 3, Article I, Section 25) — The President shall exercise supervisory authority directly over provinces, highly urbanized cities, and independent component cities; through the province with respect to component cities and municipalities; and through the city and municipality with respect to Barangays.

If this is the case the First Level Subdivision or the primary political subdivision of the Philippines are: not the 79 provinces alone but shall include the 2 special cities (Manila and Quezon City), 27 highly urbanized cities, 2 independent component cities, 3 municipalities of Metro Manila. As the chief executives of these local government units report directly to the Philippine President.

The Second Level Subdivision of the Philippines are the component cities and municipalities of the Philippines.

The Third Level Subdivision of the Philippines are the barangays - but what about for the highly urbanized cities and independent component cities??? Do they become second level then, since their city is a first level subdivision?

However, as listed in the Philippine Standard Geographic Code, the highly urbanized provinces are grouped together with the municipalities of its mother province. Metro Manila's case should be an exception.

In a nutshell if we decide that Zamboanga City be shown apart from its mother province being an highly urbanized city then it must also be the case for other highly urbanized cities and the independent component cities which are as follows: Baguio City (from Benguet), Angeles City (from Pampanga), Olongapo City (from Zambales), Lucena City (from Quezon), Bacolod City (from Negros Occidental), Iloilo City (from Iloilo Province), Cebu and Mandaue Cities (from Cebu Province), Zamboanga City (from Zamboanga del Sur), Iligan City (from Lanao del Norte), Cagayan de Oro City (from Misamis Oriental), Davao City (from Davao del Sur), General Santos City (from South Cotabato), Butuan City (from Agusan del Norte), and Las Piñas, Makati, Muntinlupa, Parañaque, Pasay, Pasig, Taguig, Mandaluyong, Marikina, Pasig, Caloocan, Malabon, Valenzuela (all from Metro Manila); and the independent component cities which are: Santiago City (from Isabela), Ormoc City (Leyte Province), Cotabato City (from Maguindanao). --Scorpion prinz | talk, 18:49, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We're currently doing that in Talk:Cities of the Philippines. Hope you join the discussion there. Also, is that the complete list of all independent cities? Thanks for the info! --Howard the Duck | talk, 11:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Filipino writers

Hi Howard, thanks for your comments re Filipino Writers, Filipino and Tagalog. Together with other wikipedians, let us try to gather a more definitive stand on the controversial issues surrounding Filipino language. I remember attending conferences in DLSU, UP and UST with speakers like Isagani Cruz (UP, ADMU, DLSU), Teresita Fortunato (affiliated with UST and DLSU), Pamela Cruz Constantino (UP and DLSU), National Artists Virgilio Almario (UP, UE, ADMU) and Bienvenido Lumbera (UST, UP, ADMU, DLSU). In addition, Tagalog, Pilipino, Filipino, KATAYUAN AT AMBAG NG LINGGWISTIKS SA PILIPINAS (1898-1998), Beyond Borders/Perspectives and Metamorphosis of Filipino as a National Language also discussed these issues. We all have the perception that Filipino and Tagalog are the same. But it seems that from these experts, Tagalog stayed within its traditional grammar rules, etc. Filipino, on the other hand, began with Tagalog but eventually moved on to become a separate language because Filipino incorporated all other Philippine languages as well as Spanish and English words that have been used frequently by Filipinos. Being a young language, Filipino stands to be controversial. Do help us try to find ways of resolving this issue within Wikipedia, at the very least. Thank you very much and have a good day! - 7258 13:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I know that, in Tagalog you can say kakain ako, Filipino you'd say magpapaxerox ako. However, categorizing them would be redundant, or really, really hard. How can you distinguish a Filipino language work with that of Tagalog language? --Howard the Duck | talk, 13:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually very tricky. But Dr. Teresita Fortunato (originally a Professor at UST Arts and Letters before moving to DLSU), Dr. Isagani Cruz and Dr. Lourdes Bautista (UST Professor before moving to DLSU) published several books and articles where they distinguished Filipino from Tagalog. At this point, it doesn't seem necessary since Filipino is a young language. But later, there will be greater marked distinctions between the two. I'm just writing so there will be many of us who can observe closely developments regarding this issue. It will be very crucial at some point. Thanks very much. - 7258 13:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's fortunate that you contacted me on this one because I really don't know the hard facts. So, for the meantime, are you favor of merging categorization of Filipino language writers and Tagalog language writers into one category called Tagalog language writers? --Howard the Duck | talk, 13:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think for the time being (for the next few years or so), Filipino language and Tagalog language writers should be merged. But let us be vigilant since there will be more differences later. Putting them under "Tagalog Writers" may stir opposition from Ma'am Fortunato, Dr. Cruz, Dr. Lumbera and company since they are in the forefront of distinguishing the two languages and pushing for the development of Filipino. Maybe "Filipino and Tagalog Writers" may be better. Informally, Tagalog writers will be those who emerged from the time of Balagtas to 1973 (when Tagalog was officially replaced by Pilipino and Filipino). Those who emerged/ have been published more extensively from the 1970s onwards like Isagani Cruz may be considered Filipino. There are those who still write in traditional Tagalog (Teo Antonio, a multi-awarded poet and U.S.T. alumnus) but they are beginning to be less in number. They are mostly published in Liwayway. But then again, I do not consider myself a genuine expert on this. There may be another Wikipedian who is far more competent. I had to get in touch with you on this since you are also interested in the issue and you are just as passionate about Philippine-related entries. Maybe you can relay the issue to the other members. Thanks again. - 7258 14:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about having "Filipino and Tagalog writers" category, BUT perhaps, we can state on the category page that it includes both Tagalog language AND Filipino language (the word "language" is very important) writers. --Howard the Duck | talk, 14:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be a bright idea. Thanks for your brainstorming genius. Good night! - 7258 14:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tagalog/Filipino

Thanks for writing. I will help populate the category in between work-related deadlines. Will be in touch. Thank you again! - 7258 13:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Howard t he Du c k 15:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Garci scandal

The movement that is there is the SNAP Gloria movement, which would try to remove Arroyo through something like a recall election. (Or any other politician for that matter.) SNAP is short for Say No to A Phony. Very funny bunch they are, they even have a chant in the tune of "we will rock you". "We will, we will, snap glu!" :) Their arguments were affirmed (indirectly) by the comments of notable constitutionalist Joaquin Bernas who said:

"Just as the people, through their ratification of the Constitution, fixed the term of the President, so also, in the exercise of their sovereign authority, the people can unfix the term."

This is very interesting in itself, but I am still open to a "movement to impeach" style article coz its NPOV :) --Noypi380 08:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say we wait for the impeachment complaint to be issued. --Howard the Duck | talk, 13:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Senate of the Philippines

I have noticed that you had removed the demarcation of the Senate into Congresses, I have reservations against it. It is true that the Senate is a continuing body, however it does not diminish, that it has to function together with the House of Represenatives, for it to be called Congress, except in cases which the constitution grants them the authority to, thus when the two houses calendar there sessions they do it in consultation with the other, and they would also have to adjourn sine die with the House. Likewise laws have introductory clauses Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled. If you were to research in the Senate Library, the Journals of the Senate is published into Congresses and Sessions, that establishes the fact that its life divided into these number of Congresses. -- Scorpion prinz | talk, 17:44, 09 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Senate can't be divided into first, second congress, etc. because they have staggered terms. However, the House is said to be divided into first, second, third, etc. congresses because the terms are not staggered. --Howard t he Du c k 09:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The terms of the members of the House and Senate does not in any way affect the life of Congress. Both institutions are continuous bodies, they just change members, it so happen that all members of the House expire their terms at the same time. If your argument shall stand and why do bills filed in the Senate at the start of every Congress reset to zero??? Let me just dig up the case with regard to this. -- Scorpion prinz | talk, 18:11, 09 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it'll be better if we continue this at Talk:Senate of the Philippines. I'd be getting advice on the matter too. --Howard t he Du c k 10:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pinoy Big Brother

Voluntary Exit = Walked; Forced Eviction = ?

(This is copied from the Pinoy Big Brother talk page.)
We all know that because of the concensus, "Walked" is the term used for "voluntary exit." Recently, in the seventh edition of the British version, Big Brother there gave one housemate something that is the equivalent to the "forced eviction"; the term used is "ejected." Can we use "ejected" in the PBB articles? - 上村七美 | talk 00:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. That'll be better. --Howard t he Du c k 06:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pinoy Big Brother Table

Hi! Why'd you delete the Pinoy Big Brother table? While words may be better than pictures (which is true in Western setting), there are numerous researches that demonstrate that Filipinos read more if presented with pictures and summarized collective entities (such as the table). And furthermore, the table is patterned after the Big Brother (TV series) table, cuz' there will be more seasons to watch out, so information is more presented easily on such a medium. Honestly, I see nothing wrong about having the table in the article. -- User:Matthewprc

Why don't you do it an infobox form, just as the one seen at Big Brother (UK), just as we do it on the season's articles? Perhaps that'll be better. But, it call be seen as repitition. Also about having more seasons, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Howard t he Du c k 06:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rumor citation

Am I right in marking the following in the Kapamilya Deal or No Deal article? I think the anon did not check his sources.

Rumour has it that GMA (rival network) paid the columnist to publish a negative review of the show.^{[citation needed]}

-上村七美 | talk 11:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, I was changing it and an edit conflict occured and you changed it already hehehe. Perhaps we should just delete the statement? --Howard t he Du c k 11:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we do. After all, GMA didn't say anything about bribing Torre. So it must not be true. - 上村七美 | talk 11:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and delete it. If someone inserts it again, the source must be cited. --Howard t he Du c k 23:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal alert

I've spotted 67.188.69.22 doing some vandalism on the Pinoy Big Brother, University of the Philippines, and The Eraserheads articles. I have to revert them myself. Just alerting you because the anon might strike again. - 上村七美 | talk 08:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only PBB is on my watchlist, UP and E-Heads aren't but I occasionally visit those. Thanks for the heads up. --Howard t he Du c k 02:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]