Inconsistencies to Philippine History articles (again).
As you can see, I became active on copy-editing and expanding some RP history-related articles, especially Katipunan. since the explosion of this issue. Well, history books are always saying that the Katipunan society was founded the night after Rizal was ordered to be banished to Dapitan. Again, that isn't a problem.
But when I was checking and looking to article-biographies of the people involved with the Katipunan, I found this statement on Andres Bonifacio's page:
“
For a time, Bonifacio worked with both the Katipunan and La Liga Filipina.
”
which is followed by a citation from Guerrero. Unfortunately, that turns out to be in dead-end. I assumed that the citation points to Guerrero's 1996 article, which came from the NCCA. I think that statement claims invalid. How come that Bonifacio worked both for the Katipunan and La Liga, to think that Katipunan was founded the day La Liga was disbanded? Thanks.--JL 09Talk to me!12:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
The Milagros Guerrero reference you want is the 1998 book "Reform and Revolution". There are 3 referenced works by her on the Bonifacio page and none of the tags go straight to the correct work. My fault, I didn't get the code right when I added them. This should be fixed. (I'll try ASAP.) The Liga didn't end with Rizal's arrest, I think this is also mentioned in Teodoro Agoncillo's History of the Filipino People and Renato Constantino's A Past Revisited. While it is true the Liga split into the KKK and the Cuerpo de Compromisarios, problem is we tend to simplify things and assume this happened immediately. The Liga was continued in Rizal's absence by Bonifacio, Mabini and others. Check the Mabini reference in the Bonifacio article, it's there in his writings (previous page from the one used in the article). Uthanc (talk) 08:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Sakay or Sacay?
I have only ever seen the last name of Macario Sacay spelled with a c here. Perhaps move to Macario Sakay since it's the most common (form of) the name? Or to Macario Sácay, the archaic spelling with diacritics, as with José Rizal and Andrés Bonifacio, since he was born during the Spanish colonial period? Is Sakay with a c even correct? If k is the modern Filipino rendering, why isn't he Makario Sakay? Congresshas used the form "Macario Sácay y de León (Macario Sakay)" but for all we know, they got that here (lol). Uthanc (talk) 07:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I support the use of Macario Sakay. Way back grade school our teacher taught the name Sakay. Our high school history teacher said the same thing. Books were printed the same thing. Being in colonial period does not mean that he has to confer with the Spanish orthographic rule, remember he was a revolutionary. --JL 09Talk to me!msg 4 u!22:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
You're referring to WP:MOSPHIL. According to the MoS for Philippine-related articles, persons born during the Spanish era should use Iberian naming customs. The problem here though is that Quezon became prominent only during American rule. Although this area is unclear in MOSPHIL, probably American/Philippine naming customs should be used here, particularly because of one characteristic: Quezon never used an accent when signing his name. --Sky Harbor(talk)16:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I was the one that moved it from Quezón to Quezon... wasn't aware of a guideline in WP:MOSPHIL. It says there that diacritics should only be used if they are widely used elsewhere, and I've only seen the name spelled without the diacritic. Another thing: The diacritic indicates the stressed vowel, right? Isn't the stress supposed to be in the first syllable of "Quezon"? TheCoffee (talk) 17:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Looks like we're in for another round of hammering, as TV Patrol World aired a report about Carlo J's article being vandalized by anons in response to his disputed National Artist status. I've filed a request for temporary full-protection on this one just to cool this down. Blake Gripling (talk) 11:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Now I have a digital copy of the La Ilustración page, scanned from Sulyap Kultura. Can the image (current copy and mine) can be public domain under Philippine or US law if it originated in Spain? Are the {{PD-Philippines}} and {{PD-US}} tags appropriate? Under Spanish law, stuff published before December 7, 1987 becomes public domain 80 years after the death of the creator. 80 years before 2009 is 1929, but I have no idea about the lives of the publisher and illustrator of La Ilustración. Perhaps it can go under fair use to be safe. Uthanc (talk) 14:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Also, is it fine to scan pictures of documents from the same Sulyap Kultura article and insert them in Wiki, even if said documents are privately owned? The article has pictures of documents like a letter of Bonifacio to Emilio Jacinto where he uses the title of "Pangulo ng Haring Bayang Katagalugan". In fact this document is already scanned on Filipinania.NET. Would it be fine to upload that image here? Preferably I would upload a digital copy of the reproduction from Sulyap Kultura since it's higher quality. Sulyap Kultura credits "Emmanuel Encarnacion Collection" for the letter and other stuff. Uthanc (talk) 14:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Is there a possibility of a Philippine wiki mailing list? So that we are always updated and get email alerts.--Exec8 (talk) 22:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Corazon Aquino as Person of the Year in Time Magazine
I have recently bumped into this guy on the Time Person of the Year in the Time Magazine page,that I have been recently noticed that he must have something against Filipinos. Most of the time, he revert edits that are implying that Corazon Aquino is the first Filipino chosen to be the Time Person of the Year [1], [2], [3].
I have explained my edits on his page, but I have just recently given that, I have a feeling that he will keep doing this once he logs in anytime soon. I am not implying to block him, I just want admins to atleast give him a warning becasue he seems to act like a leader on that page, reverting edits that doesn't please him.--XBOXaddict (talk) 12:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it's the edits per se, but the way the editor comes off to everyone else, since whenever he edits, his edit summaries make it appear as if he owns the article. --Sky Harbor(talk)01:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
In addition. I believe the original Marimar series shouldn't be called Marimar (Mexican TV series). It should simply be Marimar. Its the original series and doesn't deserve to be treated this way. The remakes should be the ones that would be given the name of the country it came from, not the original. Same goes with Rosalinda, it shouldn't be called Rosalinda (1999 TV series), it should simply be Rosalinda, because its the original series. --XBOXaddict (talk) 17:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Just because its the original TV series, does not mean it has to be "Rosalinda". the (**** TV series) differs that there are more than one series with the same name. And so what if it is a remake? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, segregating titles by their countries of origin is not very encyclopedic. Please return [name of series] ([year] TV series). -- ISWAK3 (talk) 22:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
I would like to ask you to drop the tone, it's very disrespectful and uncivil, especially for a person who's asking a favor. I believe that remakes should be inserted with the countries name on them because it doesn't only simply identifies the page, but also differentiates it from the original series. Rosalinda and Marimar are made in Mexico; by adding "(#### TV series)", its easily being confused that its Mexico who made another remake for the show, and not The Philippines.
I believe that paranthesis informations should go like this:
Remake of an old Filipino film: (TV series)
Remake of an old Filipino television series: (YEAR TV series)
Remake of other country's works: (Philippine TV series)
Regarding the Rosalinda and Marimar issue. It is very unfair to add "Mexican TV series" for the show. It's the original series and should be treated as the very first. By adding "Mexican TV series", it seems to imply that it is just one of those remakes and not the original. For example, Desperate Housewives wouldn't be changed into the name of Desperate Housewives (2004 series) just because it had a lot of remakes by the other countries.
Perhaps it would be a good idea to gather a list of all of the articles with their current names that might be affected by this (or at least the ones that keep getting moved around). All previous versions, countries, etc. This way we can make a consistent plan for naming them all. -- Mufka(u)(t)(c)22:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Good idea. Here are the list of remakes based on works by other countries (if missed out something, please don't hesitate to add). I have also inserted the other shows that are in the same issue.
Just as a point of clarification, not a suggestion either way: Is Philippine correct or is Philippines correct? -- Mufka(u)(t)(c)23:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
That is also what I am confused about. I think we just have to take Philippine because this is similar to the name given to the country's national bird, the Philippine Eagle - without S. --XBOXaddict (talk) 23:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
@Mufka, XBOXAddict: Philippines (w/ the S) is used exclusively only to refer to the country. Philippine (w/o the S) is the adjective. Another adjective referring to all things about the Philippines is Filipino, but is preferred to be used only to refer to persons. You can find more information from Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Philippine-related articles). --- Tito Pao (talk) 01:44, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. That's what I needed to know. Now is the question of interpreting WP:NC-TV. If a country designation is used, it appears that the intention of the guideline is to use the country name, not nationality (i.e. United States not American). That said, it doesn't seem like that is closely followed as I see some Mexican and Australian TV series (instead of Mexico or Australia). -- Mufka(u)(t)(c)10:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
If there are multiple shows of the same name, include the disambiguation, similar to the above for TV series in the season description, for example, "The Apprentice (U.S. season 1)" and "The Apprentice (UK series one)".
...when there are two or more television productions of the same name:
Prefix the country of broadcast – (U.S. TV series)
...so mentioning the country is indeed encyclopedic by Wikipedia standards. Sorry for the mistake. I should have read that first. Uthanc (talk) 15:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
I have been doing work on the Wendell Fertig page and wondered if someone from this group would visit it and consider raising it from "Stub-Class." I have more work planned (See discussion page.) 72.148.79.221 (talk) 10:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
As of this morning, it's now up to 74 supports, 1 neutral and zero oppose. And there are roughly three days to go. --- Tito Pao (talk) 01:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
The nomination has already closed with a vote of 84-0-1. Tambays, meet your new admin. Congrats, Sky Harbor! :D --- Tito Pao (talk) 02:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks guys. Since the practice of spamming people's talk pages with uniform thank you messages is now highly discouraged, I will not do that. But I will express my gratitude through other means. --Sky Harbor(talk)11:58, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
First...my condolences to our brothers in the Iglesia ni Cristo community on the death of their Executive Minister Erano Manalo.
Okay, back to business...just a heads up to the Tambays here. The Erano Manalo article is gaining some interest because of the news of his demise. So far, I have reverted the article just once for vandalism (the vandal replaced "has been laid to rest by God " with, um, something religiously offensive, so I undid that edit), but who knows what may come later in the day, especially when people may be at home this evening. So do lend a hand when some vandal-like edits appear on the article. Thanks. --- Tito Pao (talk) 06:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Semi-protection perhaps? And yes, despite being a Catholic, I also express my condolences to Ka Erdy's family and his supporters. I did some minor blockquoting on the announcement section just to clear things up. Blake Gripling (talk) 09:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
For now, I don't think we need the semiprot (yet :P ). Let's see how it will work out tonight until tomorrow morning. I'm anticipating heavy views and edits later once people are already home and can get online in the comfort of their living rooms, home libraries or bedrooms. I know that INC-related articles, together with ADD-related articles, draw some, uh, interest from opposing parties, and it's probably safe to presume that the Ka Erdy article will draw lots of viewers, editors and anons. --- Tito Pao (talk) 09:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Mabuhay po sa lahat ng Tambay, I started an article on one of the pioneers of Philippine patriotic drama, and I was also wondering (^_^) if you can help in its improvement.. ^_^ Salamat po!
BULARAN (talk) 04:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
GMA Fan
Boy, is this user persistent or what? Dunno if he's Gerald or some other fanboy, but as I suggested to my homie GSK, who's also a Twilight Zone Tower of Terror fan like me, such sockpuppeteers deserve to be kicked into the Twilight Zone. This user reeks of being GMAF, and so does those socks Mufka has taken care of recently.
Just recently, I have reverted edits of an anon user who keeps on reclassifying Jam 88.3 and it's mother company Raven Broadcasting Corporation into an AM radio network. After several months of reverting his edits, that guy just stopped editing here, only to create new articles of his hoax radio network to ceb.wiki. There is also an incident regarding User:Gabby-shoe2009 who posted a "death threat" on my user page here in en.wiki and after he migrated to ceb.wiki, he also posted the same "threat" on my user page after reverting his hoax edits there.
WikiPilipinas is out of our jurisdiction, and seeing as Wikipedia policies on notability and hoaxes don't apply there, I highly doubt they'd take swift action. On Philippine-language projects however, I do see spikes of activity down on the Tagalog Wikipedia, and the admins there are taking action. The other Wikipedias are not so lucky. Meanwhile, over here, I'll see what I can do. --Sky Harbor(talk)16:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I also detected those too, particularly those who made articles I've been very vocal against inclusion here (and got deleted for various reasons), like Angdl (remember this?) and FanofLiraluis, who actually built her fave architect's article in WPilipinas then put it in here (and credits the WP version as "original source"; mag-right to vanishna kasi kayong dalawa). As I see it, they and all the other Pinoy vandals are bitter at us and think they could get away with their antics in WPilipinas because their asses got kicked here. I won't be surprised if Gerald and Floro are among them too.
Yup. I've found out that that kid is just a high school student. He even have the guts to post his picture on ceb.wiki.
Regarding the migration of vandals on Philippine-language projects, I've noticed their favorite target is either Tagalog or Cebuano Wikipedia. I have notified Jordz, the admin on ceb.wiki regarding this, but with the current trend of vandals there, one admin cannot stop those vandals, especially those who uses dynamic IPs (The guy that keeps on reclassifying Jam 88.3 as an AM station uses dynamic IP addresses). -danngarcia (talk) 03:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
The thing about WikiPilipinas is that they have no regard for neither notability nor conflict of interest. For example: Nan Dal, a non-notable person, would be deleted on WP, but would not be on WPinas. The mission of WikiPilipinas is to be a compendium of all things Filipino, whether big or small, which forced it to not style itself as an academic encyclopedia, which is what Wikipedia is. --Sky Harbor(talk)11:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
(resetting) First, let's just watch and hope that they don't have the audacity to go "all-out" on the rest of Wikimedia. Because if they do, I'll have to get out of semi-retirement and have to use my tools to keep it vandal-free. Second, never lump the various banned Wiki users in the same group. Everyone is different, but don't generalize to much. And third, let's just hope that WikiPilipinas will weed out those Wikiterrorists, the same way that we do things over here. - it's war time @ 14:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Being inactive isn't considered semi-retirement, as technically you're still active. It's either you're retired, active or missing (as is the case with a lot of Wikipedians who I dearly miss).
But anyway, back to the main point. Yes, WikiPilipinas is doing something about the hoaxes, and I'm likely to believe that they are following up on developments here so that they know how to act there. However, lumping users together is partially justified: the disillusionment of these users with Wikipedia would make them jump ship to WikiPilipinas, where their contributions are less likely to face deletion and, through some odd psychological construct, they feel as if they're more appreciated there than they are here when in fact we appreciate them for contributing. At the same time, lumping the vandals together is also justified, since there are threads of commonality between their edits, and since they have begun to affect other Wikipedias in the process. It takes quite a bit of diligence to weed them out, but it should work. --Sky Harbor(talk)03:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi admins, just another heads up. User:203.111.235.50 has been creating several articles on the Chavacano Wiki, all of them are not translated to Chavacano. I've also checked his edits and some of them contains hoaxes (he created a template there that depicts NBN as the owner of Net-25 and Gem TV). Thanks. -danngarcia (talk) 08:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I am now completely confused by the references to the Manggahan Floodway in relation to Napindan channel, The Pasig River, and the Marikina River -- and I can't do anything about it because I've no idea where the Manggahan floodway is, precisely. (Hence my confusion, eh?) Anybody care to clarify the references in the three relevant existing articles? -- Alternativity (talk) 08:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello again mga tambay! Does somebody know how to cite a decision from the Supreme Court Reports Annotated? How do I write it in my reference list? Any help will be appreciated.. Thank you very much in advance! ^_^
BULARAN (talk) 11:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I think just do it as if you were referencing a Supreme Court ruling w/ the GR number. Something like "People of the Philippines vs. John Doe (GR 000000)". See Leo Echegaray and Subic Rape Case for different (though inconsistent :( examples. If you know how it's properly done as lawyers would do, so much the better ;) --- Tito Pao (talk) 01:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
These are just ordinary vandals, just revert as unnecessary. An additional tip for fighting vandals, especially for longtime Wikipedians, is to apply for rollback privileges. It's easy. –HowardtheDuck14:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I've also left a user warning on the said vandal's user talk page. That way, he or she will get the message clear that such edits are unacceptable. Let's see how this will work out. --- Tito Pao (talk) 01:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi guys, there's this another one who keeps vandalizing although warned many times on his talkpage. User talk:121.54.1.3
Urgh...these are time that I wish I was on Wikipedia 24/7 :P My best bet is that some of those edits were made by fanboys from the GMA or ABS-CBN fan forums. I'll add these articles on my watchlist. --- Tito Pao (talk) 03:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
were vandalized by various IP addresses. Upon investigation, I figured out that most of the warnings I've given out were from IP addresses in the range 112.20.*.*. I'll be reporting these to WP:ANI for further investigation and action. --- Tito Pao (talk) 09:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello, could an admin please move the article back to Cebu International Convention Center? Some n00b moved the article; didn't even care about moving the talk page along with it. As far as I can see, all references point to its name being spelled in American English, not British English. Cheers! — •KvЯt GviЯnЭlБ•Speak!17:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't necessarily call this user's edits vandalism, but their vague edit summaries ("cleanup", "fixing", etc., used ad nauseam) certainly do not match the edits themselves at times, as had been the cases here, here, and here. It also seems that this user has been editing Visayan-related articles a lot, so I'm thinking we should keep an eye especially on those. --Pare Mo (talk) 09:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, the English Wikipedia is certainly notable, but I doubt the same can be said for the Tagalog and Cebuano (and any other local-language Wikipedia). The bar for notability is stated in WP:N and there is simply not too many third-party reliable sources talking about these Wikipedia editions. Most of the sources talk about the English Wikipedia. So I agree with redirection for now. --seav (talk) 01:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't agree. If we talk about the "size" of other Wikipedias such as Tosk Albanian, Welsh, Neapolitan, Asturian, Silesian and other Wikipedias, Tagalog and Cebuano have "more" articles (based on this page.). On the same hand, some of other language Wikipedias does not have any external sources except the ISO documentation code site. I think we should have cooperative help to do this thing?--JL 09q?c03:17, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
The problem there is that local media rarely, if ever, talks about the Cebuano or Tagalog Wikipedias. Oftentimes they talk about the English Wikipedia or, because it's supposedly "indigenous", WikiPilipinas. --Sky Harbor(talk)05:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
The Vibal Foundation and DILA sources don't talk about the Tagalog Wikipedia in any substantial way, which is what WP:N is about. At most, then can be used to cite facts in an article, but not attest to the notability of the Tagalog Wikipedia. --seav (talk) 04:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Ok, if Tagalog and Cebuano Wikipedias can't merit their own articles, then we should create an article about all Philippine-based Wikipedias. This kind of suggestion was mentioned in the deletion arguments for the Swati Wikipedia, which was one of the basis for redirecting Tagalog and Cebuano Wikipedias. --Jojit (talk) 07:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
The ironic thing there is that all Philippine languages are based in the Philippines. The only language in the Borneo-Philippines language family which is found neither in Borneo nor the Philippines is Malagasy. --Sky Harbor(talk)17:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
User:Boxedor/and article Philippines
May nanggugulo na naman dun sa article ng Pilipinas. Mukhang pare-parehong tao lang. Tingnan nyo yung userpage. Looks familiar?--23prootie (talk) 12:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Re: Philippines has been protected due to edit warring and editing is currently available only for the admin. I myself is not an admin, but Backward recommended here to resolve a "dispute" on the page. Any admin here will help. Thanks.--JL 09q?c14:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Dispute resolution entails admins mediating between both parties in order to find an amicable solution. Given that there is a blatant dispute, I hope both of you will bring the matter of that up on the talk page. --Sky Harbor(talk)17:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Interested, definitely. Available precisely where and when, I do not know. Hehe. Now if we were talking Baguio 1 ... hehe :-D -- Alternativity (talk) 13:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
The Manila Bookfair is fine by me. I do hope my sked will be clear by then. And I know I also have a lot of catching up to do :P hehehe --- Tito Pao (talk) 04:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Wait a minute...when during the Manila Book Fair, and more importantly, where in MOA? The Book Fair may be a bit too busy to discuss more pressing matters. --Sky Harbor(talk)06:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Here's my proposal: definitely not in SMX, as many people would be there. Probably in some fast food or coffee place that is near SMX, but not on that building...I haven't been to MOA for some time, so I have yet to scout around for specific suggestions (do please provide suggestions). As for the date and time, either a Saturday or a Sunday, and probably a little after lunch. Or maybe in the morning, so that if we can wrap up early, we can each go to the bookfair to do our own book browsing :P --- Tito Pao (talk) 06:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for having to ask this, since I was out of the loop for some time :P What documents and/or materials are we expected to bring? --- Tito Pao (talk) 02:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Who's busy on Sept 19? If some of you have to work or study at Saturdays, we can set it on Sept 20, otherwise Sept 19 is best. We can assemble at the bookfair and proceed immediately at the nearest tambayan (maybe Krispy Kreme), this is the map. I can set up updates of the event via twitter (twitter.com/pinoywikipedia). --Exec8 (talk) 06:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm for Sept. 20 then. By the time we finish, we'll all be able to come back to the bookfair, each to his own, and perhaps catch up with the last-minute sale of books. So I heard, there may be huge discounts just before the bookfair wraps up (hehehe) --- Tito Pao (talk) 02:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Just in case I can file for leave on a Sunday (DO's on Wed/Thu) and it gets accepted, can I join you guys? It would also be a chance to bust up MOA for the first time ever-don't laugh, the closest I have ever been anywhere near MOA was when I went to the nearby Teletech office to apply for a job in April 2005. --Eaglestorm (talk) 02:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
TitanOne and Eaglestorm, you are most welcome and other Wikipedians can join. I would like personally to meet new faces on Philippine meetups. We can also discuss topics other than Wikimedia Philippines that you wish to talk about. --Jojit (talk) 18:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Agenda
Okay, our tentative agenda would be:
Wikimedia Philippines (yet again, since for some reason we can't get it off the ground)
Finalize the Articles of Incorporation (final list of incorporators, directors, contributions, et. al.)
Complete the Bylaws (our template will be the "express-lane" bylaws used by the SEC, with changes to account for Wikimedia-specific provisions in the current bylaws)
Re-evaluate our depository bank
Why did I add this? Because apparently, with the wave of banks actually reducing their interest rates to rates below 1% (Landbank 0.75%, BDO 0.75%, BPI 0.625%, etc.), I'd figure that BDO and Landbank are now neck-and-neck. The only things now separating the two are branch network coverage and initial deposit.
Apply for a WMF grant (possibly)
Why did I add this? Because WMPH may be short on funds, we can ask for a grant from the WMF to get it off the ground. Wikimedia chapters in the Czech Republic, Hungary, Portugal and Ukraine have asked for various start-up funds (heck, Wikimedia Czech Republic asked for funds to set up an actual office), and perhaps we can benefit from that scheme as well. With a reference exchange rate of P48=US$1, the minimum grant given is $500 (P24,000), while the theoretical maximum (there is no definite maximum, but the WMF expects requests to go no further than the theoretical maximum) is $15,000 (P720,000).
Potential projects
Publishing completed Wikibooks to raise funds for WMPH (Florante at Laura, etc.)
Sustainable development of smaller Philippine-language communities
Why did I add this? Because some of the existing language communities are growing at geometric rates which can be considered unsustainable and bad for wiki-depth. Examples include the Waray and Bikol communities.
Anyone else who's interested to join us? Do let yourselves be heard. Maybe we should also leave notes on the Talk pages of previous attendees as a courtesy to them.
(Edit: And since we're on the topic, how about extending the invitation to the other Phil-wikis as well, such as TL and CEB?)
Per discussion, here's the tentative details so far:
Date: Sept. 19 (Sat.) or 20 (Sun), to coincide with the Manila International Bookfair. Sept. 20 (Sun.) was suggested by Exec8 to allow those who have classes/work on Saturdays to participate in the discussions
Time: TBA
Place: somewhere near the SMX (MIBF venue) such as San Miguel by the Bay, Krispy Kreme or any coffeeshop.
Agenda will be per Sky Harbor's post above. Let us know if there are some items that need to be discussed as well.
Since the AOI and by-laws will form part of the agenda, you may want to review them on these pages, as well as the pertinent Talk page discussions on these topics:
Now comes the question...where in MoA? I've seen Exec8's tweet and, from the looks of it, we'll be having it on September 20 (unless someone else objects? :P ). Personally, I'd also like to have it on the 20th. The question is, where in MoA specifically. Or, do we meet first at the SMX and then find a place from there on? --- Tito Pao (talk) 01:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't like Krispy Kreme, ang mahal ng doughnuts pareho lang naman ang lasa sa iba. ;) But if there are no other options, then Krispy Kreme will do. I think September 20 is final since nobody objects and it's already posted at the Manila 5 meetup page. --Jojit (talk) 18:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Not on a Sunday
I suggest that in every meet we have preferably not to schedule it on Sundays. We Mormons always respect Sundays as the Day of the Lord and we respect it very much. Any day of the week but not on Sundays.
The meetup is scheduled on a Saturday. If I were to be specific on religions, the problem now no longer falls on Mormons, but on Seventh-Day Adventists. Since it's on a Saturday, I hope you can come. --Sky Harbor(talk)06:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Ok, majority wants to do it on Sunday, one opposes. Who wants to do it as a two day event? At least more things to be discussed and more things will be ironed out. Otherwise, we must decide really what is the best day to meet. Maybe as this thread goes on the venue will be questioned...--Exec8 (talk) 02:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm happy with either day, pero if it's a two-day thing, there's a possibility that some people cannot make it to DAY2 due to certain emergencies or prior commitments cropping up. To Sky, I hope none of the attendees are SDAs (not that I don't like them) or they could raise the same issue as Geopoet did. --Eaglestorm (talk) 02:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Demographically speaking, the average Filipino Wikipedian is between 18 and 30, male, a resident of Metro Manila, Roman Catholic and educated at least with a college degree. I haven't seen any others deviate from this, and Geopoet is the first Wikipedian that I have seen here who is non-Catholic. However, I do wish that it is on a Saturday. It makes life easier for all of us. Or, if any of you are daring, we can have a Clark 1 (P700 for Manila-Clark and back on Zest Airways). --Sky Harbor(talk)07:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I am open to either Saturday or Sunday (unless otherwise I am required to report on a Saturday). I am calling everybody to vote now, if there is no agreement for a unified date then it will be a two day event. For location, Manila so far is the best place to meet, other places if its a vacation leave/ break. --Exec8 (talk) 10:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually...for the record, I have a regular (anticipated) mass service on a Saturday, so I should be considered somewhat "sabadista" :PBut since the meet-ups aren't held weekly anyways, I'm willing to make an exception should the meet-up be on a Saturday. Having said that, I'm amenable to either Saturday or Sunday, with a slight preference for Sunday for the sole reason that it's the last day of the Bookfair (and that means, after the meet-up, I might stay in the Bookfair til it closes shop). But as of the moment, I'm not committing (yet) to a specific day. --- Tito Pao (talk) 01:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Saturday or Sunday?
Saturday would be nice because everybody's just laying back. Spiffy ang Sunday because of religious commitments or whathave you. --Eaglestorm (talk) 12:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
As of August 24, the agreed date is September 19, 2009, Saturday at the Mall of Asia. I propose 11am as assemble time so we can iron out documents needed and a possible bank deposit on the same day or an agreed bank day. BDO in MoA is open both Sat and Sun unless we still consider LBP. --Exec8 (talk) 11:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Official Date
Its now official. The final date will be September 19, 2009, Saturday. Participants will assemble at the SMX Convention Center (wait for a tweet on exactly where) at 11am and meeting will commence at lunch possibly at a nearby resto, like Razons of Guagua . Bring IDs, pen, notes, [laptop and a digital camera] (if possible). For first time participants, look at our pictures (Manila 1,2,4) so you know who are the ones you will meet. --Exec8 (talk) 12:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Okay, September 19 it is. Btw, for those who are looking at the pictures: I'm no longer long-haired, so you definitely no longer see me ponytailed in person :P --- Tito Pao (talk) 01:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
We dont need to stay long at Burger King, just like the same experience with Kenny's on Manila 1. But once we gather for about an hour there we can go to another place we can brainstorm. So knock on to late comers... --Exec8 (talk) 21:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I usually come early to meetings, so the newcomers can simply look for me :) i'll let you guys know (on the 18th at the latest) what i will be wearing on the meet-up. --- Tito Pao (talk) 02:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I have a disdain for peeking at userpages (because it makes me appear like a stalker), but at least his retirement seems noble enough, not like others who retired in the heat of controversy or argument. Hopefully he will still be involved with WMPH, since that is an off-line, in-real-life endeavor, and not something done online. But anyway, who wants to put him on WP:MW? --Sky Harbor(talk)09:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
I still stick with the Sept. 19 meetup. It's hitting two birds with one stone, attending both MIBF and Manila 5. --Jojit (talk) 06:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
My name shows up on the list of trustees, but not on the list of incorporators. Given Lenticel's situation, if needs must be, then count me in :) --- Tito Pao (talk) 07:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Saturday it is! :) By the way, I was told by family members that besides the Bookfair, MOA will also have the Gary-Martin concert and also a (gasp) sale :P Hope there aren't too many people, and hope we'll get seats at BK the soonest possible... --- Tito Pao (talk) 04:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Look at the pictures in the past meetups: Manila 1, Manila 2 and Manila 4. Take note that Tito Pao is now short-haired while I'm long-haired. Just in case you can't recognize us, I will send you my contact number through the "Email this user" feature of this wiki. --Jojit (talk) 03:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
As I"ve mentioned earlier, I'll try to wear something distinctive...maybe a shirt with a unique slogan or design on it. I might also be using a black shoulder bag. --- Tito Pao (talk) 04:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
If that's the case can I print a tarp-sized (4ft x 4ft) picture of Tito Pao so that the newer guys can know who to approach? (lol) --TitanOne (talk) 03:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Wow, the WPilipinas people were there in Manila 2. Hopefully they appear on Saturday so we could talk to them about the vandals' "exodus" to their turf.
Naah...even if we talked to Mr. Vibal himself, I don't think they would mind at all, given the all-inclusive nature of WikiPilipinas :| Anyways...I'm not sure I'll be wearing that yellow shirt from Manila 1 on Saturday :P Will keep you guys updated by tomorrow. See you! --- Tito Pao (talk) 02:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
HAH, talk about a Wiki being truly something that Wikipedia is not. Anyways, for ID purposes, look for a guy wearing either a dark blue shirt, an All Blacks jersey, or a Wallabies jersey. Takta, if not for a company recall on Wednesday, I could have been scouting out MOA that day. Hehe --Eaglestorm (talk) 02:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for making Manila 5 a success. We finally complete the By-laws and we set the time table of incorporation before November 2009. I would like to request Sky and Pao to provide the summary of the things happened in BK and Krispy Kreme on the Manila 5 meetup page. By the way, I forgot my 6 pc of premium donuts there, I hope that one of you picked it up otherwise it goes to the trash bin :( ... --Exec8 (talk) 14:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
IIRW, Sky told us he would insert the revisions after coming home last night because he had lots of work to do today and tomorrow. --Eaglestorm (talk) 02:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Apparently, some adminsitrator deleted the page for the show without concluding from a consensus. They claim that it was copywritten from a website. Even though, the story of the real person, "Tiagong Akyat" was taken from the WikiPilipinas page; the page for the Philippine informations. While the character and other information were taken from the show's website. To conclude, it isnt the wikipedia editors who copywritten the website, but its the website who took copyrights from the wikipedia page. --CocaCirca2009 (talk) 21:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Maybe the article from WikiPilipinas was copied from http://www.noypitayo.com/2009/08/agimat-presentstiagong-akyat-casts-characters/ If I am not mistaken, WikiPilipinas is not like Wikipedia that takes care of copyright licenses. Apparently, copying an article from WikiPilipinas is still copyright infringement. And I think WikiPilipinas has a rule that it's okay to copy articles from Wikipedia. Consider re-creating the article by not copying it from WikiPilipinas (or other website) and provide refs from news.--JL 09q?c23:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Is it possible for any administrators to bring the page back and give me atleast a day or two to fix the copyright problems? I would rewrite everything, I promise. I just can't remember what exactly was written in the page. --CocaCirca2009 (talk) 23:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
There is a need of restoration because I have completely forgot what was written on the article. And to answer what you said earlier. It was this website that copied the information from the Tiagong Akyat's official website. Therefore it was the NoyPi website that violated the rules and NOT wikipedia.--CocaCirca2009 (talk) 10:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Even though copyright violation is blatant to Philippine websites (like copying Wikipedia), the rules on copying outside the Wikipedia is still not on the rules on Wikipedia because its beyond Wikipedia. Now, copying full statements on a website then pasting it on Wikipedia violates Wikipedia policy. To make things clear, you may file a un-delete request at WP:DRV so that admins will review if it is justifiable to restore the page. You will provide reasons why it must be restored (and your promises, too.). Follow all instructions there. But for practicality, it is better to re-start the article Tiagong Akyat again without copying it directly from an independent website. Proper referencing is also needed.--JL 09q?c14:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
All I'm saying is that I need those informations so that I can work with it. I didnt say that the whole thing that was taken from WikiPilipinas or the Official Website will be left there. All I'm saying is that if some one can copy all the information delted from Tiagong Akyat and paste it into User:CocaCirca2009/Tiagong Akyat--CocaCirca2009 (talk) 23:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I didn't know how to handle this, since the article is a notable one, (being a TV program), I written another version, which can now be find at Tiagong Akyat. You may modify the article. But remember not to copy-paste directly from an internet source, it can be plagiarism and/or copyright infringement. In Wikipedia, it is a very serious issue. Please be reminded with the proper citation and paraphrasing if possible, but still references are needed.--JL 09q?c12:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Translation: It seems that there are people who want settlement templates deleted. Just a heads-up since the following three may be next. --Sky Harbor(talk)10:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. Unfortunately, 23prootie has given only a partial and misrepresentative description of what is happening. A number or redundant forks of {{Infobox settlement}} are being proposed for deletion, in order that they can be replaced with instances of that generic template. If, as seems likely, the three Philippine infoboxes are redundant to {{Infobox settlement}}, then yes; they may be proposed for deletion under those circumstances. But there will still be an equivalent or better infobox on the articles concerned. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits12:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Okay. So December is coming. But aside from making Christmas exciting, Filipinos are more exciting (particularly politicians) to the coming 2010 elections, which is scheduled on May 2010. I am not sure, if this is a case of using Wikipedia to promote an individual as nicer as he can be, like in this case of the article Mikey Arroyo. Well, in this [21] revision, Mikey Arroyo was written very poor, there are some POV statements and some stuff that is not good. When [User:Pampanga88]] and User:Promikey and edited the article on Sept. 15 and 16 respectively, major changes occur: reference list was removed, those POV statements and unverified claims (like the libelous statement (I think) was removed: "You know, first of all, I got married. I received lots of gifts. Then in the election campaign, somehow, many people helped me", external links section was removed, paged was blanked, I restored the page again, then refs section was replaced by "watch out for new content about Congressman Juan Miguel Arroyo soon!" (like an advertising website under construction :) ), replaced again by a semi-autobio sentences, Bluemask restored the article added BLP, then the user undid again, the user then removed cats before the current revision. I warned both users about page blanking, removal of content and some sort of removing templates. User Pampanga88 responded to me, and it seems that they were "paid" to do something like cleaning up articles, etc. I wonder if this is in connection with the 2010 elections.
Yes, the edits of the two users were very good that it removed unnoticed libelous or very POV statements on the article, but as I said earlier, this can be a matter of using Wikipedia as a tool for the election. The idea of this happening to other articles discussing politicians running for 2010 also crossed my minds, maybe they are posting things like election campaigns to the politicians' article. What I want to say is that we should have a full forced support to preserve neutrality of politician's article, and remove statements discussing their campaign propaganda/platforms, etc., if this may happen again. Thank you.--JL 09q?c15:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree; we can't let WP be used as some candidate's alternative campaign vehicle by letting some of his or her PR peeps (or some other paid hacks) put in POV or propagandist stuff. This is definitely one of the places where the NPOV thing comes into play.--Eaglestorm (talk) 17:45, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
I suggest creating the following page: Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines/Election watchlist/2010. Fill it with a list of links to election-related bios and articles and anyone can then review changes to those pages by clicking on the "Related changes" link on the sidebar while on the list page. What the Related changes does is it lists the most recent changes to all the pages linked from the original page. Take note that this is just an alternative to adding all of those related pages to your individual watchlists. Think of it as a community watchlist. --seav (talk) 00:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I've added names on the list. For organization, I've sorted them out into sections for President/Vice President, Senators, Party-lit Reps and also the Political Parties (lest a casual visitor follow the articles of each candidates' party). Feel free to add more. --- Tito Pao (talk) 03:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
New WMPH by-laws
Okay, after fixing everything up, the new by-laws are ready for review. Target date for signing (and by extension, commencing the process of incorporation) as agreed at Manila 5 is October 17. Proceed here. --Sky Harbor(talk)13:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
WMPH update: Last September 22, Cloudhand and I went to SEC and inquired about the process of incorporation. The first step is to reserve the name of the corporation. Since our name reservation expired a long time ago, I re-applied the name Wikimedia Philippines Inc. at the website of SEC and paid the reservation fee yesterday. The name is reserved until December 22, 2009. So I hope that we would able to establish WMPH before the said date. --Jojit (talk) 01:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
For everyone's reference (mine included), please post the entire process of incorporation. In addition, please review the By-laws, as those have to be submitted to the ChapCom for review and affirmation by the Board. I'm hoping we can close the By-laws by October 1. --Sky Harbor(talk)02:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
For the process of incorporation, we just need to complete all the basic requirements for a non-stock corporation. (Go here and click the Non-Stock Corporation link) According the Public Information Desk at SEC, we don't even need to submit the other additional requirements and even a bank account number. --Jojit (talk) 02:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I think, the following must be added to the Manny Pacquiao article: Justice Minita Chico-Nazario (San Miguel, Bulacan) holds the distinction of being the first woman Justice in the Sandiganbayan and its first woman Presiding Justice. Married to businessman Rodolfo Nazario, she and her children Roderick, Rommel, and Karen presently reside at 299 Gov. A.Santos, BF Homes, Sucat, Parañaque, Metro Manila. Nazario's husband Rod, age 74, former Manny Pacquiao manager, passed away on September 24, 2009 after having undergone by-pass operation in 2006 and underwent chemo-therapy for his lung cancer.[22][23] Pacquiao fought under Nazario from 1995 until 2005. Rod Nazario gave Pacquiao the latter’s big break in the United States in 2001 when he negotiated that “Pacman” fight in the undercard in an Oscar De La Hoya headliner at the MGM Grand Hotel in Las Vegas.[24] Rod Nazario also had four children from his first wife, Emenita – Roberto, Raymundo, Dedet, and Myra.[25] --124.106.81.204 (talk) 09:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I think we need to come up with a proper plot summary for the article, since the whole story concluded recently. The current one reads like a POV-ish DVD blurb, so why not rewrite it for great justice? Blake Gripling (talk) 13:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Agenda: Philippine Wiki (WMPH) Foundation Day, Development of wikis in local languages, Vandalism and all other stuff.
To participate, please add pinoywikipedia@yahoo.com to your contact list. I saw an increasing number of chat participants in the last 3 sessions, new faces in Manila 5 and the realization of an organization after almost 4 years of discussions. --Exec8 (talk) 19:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't frakking believe this. 79.78.6.136 (talk·contribs) and other users in the 79.78.X.XXX range slapped a sock tag on me just because I kept on removing the inappropos caption in the Tayong Dalawa infobox. Hay, mgatrollnga naman, lahat gagawin para sirain ka. (Trolls will do anything to malign you.) Somebody lay down the law on this guy. thanks.--Eaglestorm (talk) 11:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Not as LAME as you are. Look at you, trying to act all tough. You think you're cool, do you? Look at your talkpage, and all the people you have bitched to. I feel sad for you and the people you have been rude to. Try to atleast be civil to people. What a feeler. You think you're the best in Philippine Wikipedia pages? Look at yourself in the mirror again.--79.78.105.86 (talk) 17:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Break it up people! To the anon: please understand that the box does say that "if you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." People will edit your work on Wikipedia (or on any wiki encyclopedia for that matter) whether you like it or not. However, whatever this inappropos caption is (and I hope to see it for myself), this may be resolved amicably. A lot of Wikipedians that Eaglestorm has gotten flak from apparently do not know how the system works, and hopefully we can have Wikipedians who are ballsy enough to reform themselves in order to comply (Howard the Duck comes to mind). --Sky Harbor(talk)18:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Hey, why not take a chill pill for a couple of days and puh-lease don't try to turn this around against me by bringing up my past talk page comments. Wala kang kinalaman doon, at wag kang mangaral sa pagiging (You were not involved there and don't you lecture me on being) civil when it's your rants regarding the TD infobox that started all of this and you're simply trying to get back at me because your three unblock requests were denied (with good reason, if I may add) and your user warnings and GMAFan socklabelling on me were also removed. Simply put, if you can't understand the guidelines on editing o even try to contribute meaningful stuff, stay off Wikipedia. I suppose you got better things to do offWiki than flaming people here with your you-think-you're-so-tough crap...Bah, the hell with you, you are so beyond help. --Eaglestorm (talk) 13:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
79.78.x.x is the banned User:Witchy2006 so he shouldn't be throwing sock accusations around. I haven't been paying attention to him, but if his edits are disruptive he can be reported and blocked for block evasion. -- Mufka(u)(t)(c)10:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out Mufka. No wonder the frequent unblock requests are similar. Since I can't add up these latest anon socks can you put them on the list of the confirmed Witchy socks?--Eaglestorm (talk) 06:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Off-topic. I wish this wouldn't pass. This is simply political pa-pogi and completely disregards the historical reason for the flag's design. --seav (talk) 06:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm only guessing, but I think that the sun's axis of symmetry should be horizontal, not vertical. Now whether the pointy side should point to the left or to the right, I don't know. --seav (talk) 11:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it should. If these people really wanted to add Muslims onto the flag's sun, why can't they just redefine the rays like what we did with the three stars? --Sky Harbor(talk)13:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I think that if they want to make a Muslim symbol on it, it should obviously and understandably a Muslim symbol because I think that the 9th ray is not as Muslim as its seems.--User:Ryomaandres13:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Just like you, I am very surprised too at this news and I am not Filipino. Fellow vexillologists, especially from Japan, think this is a major joke and are shocked. Back to what I know, I downloaded the senate bill last night around 2 am. There is no construction sheet with the bill, but if I can find the senator that wrote the bill, I can try and ask. However, would the NHI have a document like that? I might need one for the current flag, so if yall can ask for me, that would be great. If it happens to be in a book, I will pay one of yall to ship it to me. If this bill passes (and according to you guys, it seems certain), I would like to have a new construction sheet book or whatever is passed out by NHI and a new flag (and I will also pay for that). This is something I feel strange doing and I know if my Filipino friends see this, I expect a barong in my side. However, as a vexillologist on Wikipedia, it is my duty to draw flags accurately. (The cable colors are still the same, but I will try and see if I can fix those). User:Zscout370(Return Fire)17:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I wrote to Sen. Gordon seeing if a drawing is available. I tried the 9 rays with the top of the sun pointing to the hoist of flag and, in my honest opinion, it looks very lopsided when it is flown like a normal flag. I expect a special vertical flag to be created so the sun points upright. I still wish they picked something other than cable colors for the flag. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)01:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I hope we all realize here that like what Howard says, the Constitution still mandates that there by a national referendum before changing any of the national symbols. Presuming this passes, if no referendum is held, then no change will be effected, similar to what happened to the attempt to change the coat of arms. --Sky Harbor(talk)02:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
ARTICLE XVI, Section 2. "The Congress may, by law, adopt a new name for the country, a national anthem, or a national seal, which shall all be truly reflective and symbolic of the ideals, history, and traditions of the people. Such law shall take effect only upon its ratification by the people in a national referendum." Sadly, the flag IS NOT COVERED by this. This is why you had all of the blue color changes and the citizens were not consulted. BTW, I found official Pantone colors for the flag. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)02:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I guess altering the design of the flag will also alter the NATIONAL SEAL, hence it maybe imperative to hold a referendum, someone should go to the Supreme Court for a possible declaratory relief. --Scorpion prinz(Talk | contribs)00:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I think that the Philippine flag should be redesigned anew, maybe Scorpion prinz is right, we should hold a referendum to redefine our national symbols so as to better reflect our cultural diversity, becuase our national symbols were mostly created by people who came from Luzon... BULARAN (talk) 06:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
It's illogical to conclude that just because the symbols were created by people from Luzon then the symbols are faulty. --seav (talk) 07:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
With the floods in the Philippines, I seriously think the flag issue will be put on the back burner for a really long time. However, it feels like to me Senator Gordon has been doing this for years, so it will not be forgotten. I think a vote could be held, but it will have to take a People Power to do it. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)04:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Will this stop the violence of both Muslim and the Army??? I think not! if they want to stop this, this is not an effective one. --Ryomaandres (talk to me) 2 October 2009
Let's help bring this to DYK, if possible. The record rainfall would make for a good hook. (BTW, is everyone OK? We were pretty much spared by the floods here in my house.) --seav (talk) 17:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Lenticel here (I know, I'm supposed to be retired). Anyways I'm glad that some are you are ok. I managed to escape to higher ground before the water became unpassable. I hope all of you are safe.--121.1.53.62 (talk) 03:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Magandang hapon mga kasama. Sa ganang akin, mas makakabuti nga ito sa In The News, lalo na't current event naman ito. Bago nga lang pala ako dito, ngunit nais kong tumulong sa pagpapalago at pagpapaunlad ng Tagalog Wiki (I don't know, if this is really your term here). Pagpasensyahan nyo na lamang ako at unti-unti ko pang pinag-aaralan ang daan ng pagsasaayos. --Sarhento 1645H Ika-30 ng Setyembre, 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarhento (talk • contribs) 08:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Sarhento, panunawa lang po na dahil ito ay ang Wikipediang Ingles, gumamit lamang po kayo ng Ingles dito. Higit rin sa iyon, lumagda po kayo gamit ng apat na tilde. Maraming salamat po. (please be advised that since this is the English Wikipedia, please only use English here In addition, please sign using four tildes. Thank you very much.) --Sky Harbor(talk)14:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
(Off-Topic) Apologies for what happened, to Eaglestorm, to Sky Harbor and to the whole group. I realized just lately that I commented on ENWIKI. Sarhento (talk) 00:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Re to Peparazzi: Nobody hates you here in Wikipedia. The thing is you and ISWAK3 (to quote Sky Harbor) tend to escalate a possible edit war.
I do not know if Peparazzi and ISWAK3 are possible sockpuppets of GMA Fan, because I did not encounter the latter in editing. But both are involved in editing GMA shows.--JL 09q?c04:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
(resetting indent) I've posted a comment on the Darna Talk page. Perhaps you may want to consider my suggestions there. Thanks. --- Tito Pao (talk) 08:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Anon IP claims Darna article as his/her own "copyrighted" article
Just a heads up---and just when you thought the disagreement over how to write the characters' list was the only issue....
Someone claimed that the Darna article was a "copyrighted" article and added the copyvio tag on it. Curiously, however, the "copyrighted" material is a blog post! It contains similar text to the Darna article...in fact, the synopsis is an exact copy of the same synopsis on the Wikipedia article, even on versions dated before the blog post's posting date. (For good measure, I looked up the Google cache link, I have a gut feeling that the blog author might decide to tamper with the blog post and change the date to make it look "older".)
Pointed something out on the article's talkpage. Apparently, the blog itself contains links to downloads...and I bet the blog owner isn't the owner of those IPs. Annoying. Shrumster (talk) 06:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello. I think there is something happening bad here. 23prootie charges me of owning the article Francisco Carreon, even though his obsessive behavior pointed that he really wanted to own the article: like not accepting good faith edits done by other editors, and deleting every single notification tags and reliable edits done by others in Francisco Carreon. He even accused me of vandalism one time, but the term vandalism applies if a user did edit not to improve the article but to worsen it, I wanted to improve Carreon article to comply with Wikipedia policies as well as historical facts, but 23prootie still mind of violating rules. He inserted Vice President infobox on the article even if Carreon is not an official vice president of the Philippines (vice president of the Tagalog Republic may qualify, but Philippines? No). The precedence that the post was abolished also signified that he really was the Philippine's Vice president. I cleaned up the article so much that it is accurate with Wikipedia policies, re-linked the Balangay sorts (see below), he also insisted to add Carreon in the Vice President of the Philippines template even though User:TheCoffee removed recently unofficial vice presidents. He changed the article's assessment many times claiming that it is a B-class and High-importance because Carreon is an important icon in history (but changed his reason later).
I changed the internal link Katagalugan to Tagalog Republic to globalize the article. For example, not all people in Wikipedia is familiar in Tagalog language, so I just renamed the phrases Republika ng Katagalugan into more English Tagalog Republic then inserted parenthesis with the Tagalog equivalent inside it. I also changed Sacay to Sakay because that was the real name of Macario Sakay, not Macario Sacay. I also inserted English name of the guardia civil, the civil guard. All of those were removed.
I advised him to contact somebody if he wanted to re-assess his article, but he still pushed to change the assessment. As for the assessment issue, a member of WikiProject Biography said that its a Start article and a low, but not C.
As for the Philippine Commonwealth, a long debate occurred when he moved the article to Philippine Commonwealth from Commonwealth of the Philippines. Debators stand that the article should be named as Commonwealth of X, w/c was based on historical notes. But one time, when 23prootie found an archived news at the NY Times using the shorthand Philippine Commonwealth, he moved the article in that name. We explained to him that the official name of the Commonwealth was really Commonwealth of X, and it was written that way to save ink: i.e., many documents/news mentions the name Commonwealth of the Philippines before saying Philippine Commonwealth in successive paragraphs. Two other users, BilCat and RightCowLeftCoast as well as I decided that the article should reach a consensus before moving, then I applied for page-move protection for the Commonwealth, which was protected indef.
Earlier this day, 23prootie copied the whole article and pasted it on the redirect Philippine Commonwealth (and its talk page) just to "evade" (I can't remember what's the proper term) the page-move protection of Commonwealth of the Philippines. Then he created another section listing down his points which was based on WP:NAME. I think this issue is the same when I proposed a move of Benigno Aquino, Jr. to Ninoy Aquino, when users agreed that as long as a redirect, such as Philippine Commonwealth points to the main article, say Commonwealth of the Philippines, there is no reason to move such article.
On the Philippine Commonwealth talk, he listed down all rules in WP:NAME plus his own understanding how it applies to the article. I don't see why or he justifies that the name "X Commonwealth" is more unique than the common "Commonwealth of X", to quote is really unique per se. Finally, the admin who protected the page Commonwealth of the Philippinessaid thatif and when a clear consensus for moving/renaming develops, just drop him by note that a consensus for renaming was developed and it's time for page-move. Consequently, even before the community decided what would be the best article name for the historical government, and even before this section was written, the article was moved, renamed by means of copy-pasting, 23prootie moved the article based on his justification. If my calculations are correct, this is the 6th time the article was moved by the same person with no consensus (just he saw it in the Internet) of the community. I believe this probably the same reason why User:Boxedor boiled his blood and undergone edit warring over the article Philippines.
23prootie has been blocked multiple times, and same reason goes: edit warring and disruptive editing.
Comment. He shouldn't have gone to ANI to resolve the problem when he could have at least tried to seek consensus here or in the article. If he's at fault, I think his good faith has run out, not yours. I think a topic ban is in order for prootie if he persists on keeping his stuff in the article and rejects that of others. I don't see the reason why he's citing OWN in your assessment of the Carreon article instead of explaining whether your assessment was correct. --Eaglestorm (talk) 09:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
According to history, the balangay in Katipunan doesn't mean the boat itself, (also called prehistorically as balangay, in the Philippines), and Silanganan and Dapitan are not Far East and the city itself, but codenames for places in Manila area where Katipunan is active. For example, they listed Binondo as one of Katipunan core activity areas. If they do not want to expose Binondo as a place where Katipuneros meet and nested, they will write in their documents the place codenamed as Tikbalang or even Madrid, for example. As for the balangay, it is not the boat, but another codename for municipal level branch of the Katipunan. If, the Katipunan is considered the Kataas-taasang Sanggunian or Supreme Council, provincial level is called Sangguniang Panlalawigan or provincial council and in municipal level, it is called Sangguniang Balangay or balangay council. Balangay is used here as another codename for municipality. As such, Katipunan is full of codenames sometimes very hard to distinguish from facts–so I do not see any reason why it must be linked to Far East and Dapitan City, and balangay for the boat article--JL 09q?c08:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
My Mozilla Crashed immediately after I installed it. I think it's now fixed since it does not crash anymore. --Ryomaandres (talk to me) 2 October 2009
The toolbar is very good! But the problem is, the radio playback repeats with no reason. For example, the radio sings "Chika lang yon, oh, chika chika chika chika chika chika..." and so on. Then Mozilla hangs. (Nag-ha-hang yung Mozilla). I do not know if the problem lies in my browser or in the toolbar itself, i.e., they are not compatible. Anyway, congratulations to the developers of this toolbar!--JL 09q?c16:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Nanami Kamimura is now working on this. Editors are welcome to help. Exec8, I can't believe nakapasok Ang Magkambal (The Twins got in)! --Eaglestorm (talk) 14:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes. I know. Personally knew the twins (same age group). But I would rather be silent about it and not do edits on it. Popularity ironically is measured on how frequent the article was edited by fanboys...--Exec8 (talk) 16:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
It was not mentioned in the transcript. I only knew it last Sunday via txt. If you know my age you will get the idea whom I am referring to. --Exec8 (talk) 04:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Just got a long reply on my talk page, replied to the editor, and now got an even longer response. I need your second opinion on this:
Another editor tried to insert material on the Iglesia ni Cristo article. The material was about a criminal case decided by the Supreme Court. The said case involved INC members and some private individuals, although the case in question did not really involve the INC as an organization. Because the edits were, among others, citing the original Supreme Court decision instead of a news source, I removed the said article using the standard warning templates asking for more sources.
The said editor reverted the change and left a message on my talk page. I responded by saying that one of my issues with the edit was that mentioning the said case doesn't seem to be relevant to the INC article as a whole. The other editor then responded in a much longer reply to my talk page. He challenged me to support my contention about "relevance" (I'm thinking along the lines of WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NOT, although I couldn't pinpoint an exact passage) and also challenged me to remove the section about sexual abuses in the Catholic Church article (although I have a good answer for that ready). (The second response really is long, but those are the two essential points you can pick up from his reply.)
It may also interest you guys that the said case being inserted into the INC article appears mostly on blogs...at least, as far as a Google search tells me. I tried Google News and Yahoo News but couldn't find any news item that even mentions this case.
Any ideas on how I should proceed? I'm trying to cool off a bit before making my own response. But if you are so inclined, do feel free to step in and reply on my talk page or on the other editor's page. You can find at the nitty-gritty details on my talk page and User talk:Rickhavoc#September 2009on the other editor's talk page. These places are where the discussion have gone so far. Thanks. --- Tito Pao (talk) 05:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
If the case happened when the INC members were applying their duties, or used their membership as a way to expedite the crime, we can perhaps add it. –HowardtheDuck06:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
That's what I thought so, too. The case in this instance, however, was kidnapping :P I don't see the merits of including it in the INC article unless (with apologies to our INC brothers) it would turn out that such activities are part of INC ministers' duties (I don't buy that, of course). Although, it should be noted, in the said case, the scene of the crime occurred at the basement of an INC temple.
Perhaps because of this, I think, the other editor insists that since the case involves INC ministers, it should be mentioned in the INC article in the same manner as the Catholic priests' sex abuse cases (although of course, the approach done in the Roman Catholicism article isn't as detailed and has a different perspective). My mind tells me that there are strong reasons against including this case in the INC article, just that I need to pinpoint exact policy pages (and passages) to support my stand; if this particular case is an isolated case, why include it? --- Tito Pao (talk) 06:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Issues on the Tagalog Wikipedia (again)
Again, the language drama is unfolding yet again on the Tagalog Wikipedia, this time circling around two issues:
There's yet another move to rename the Tagalog Wikipedia as the Filipino Wikipedia
State of Baybayin (or rather, the validity of using Baybayin in articles)
I agree to that change, as Tagalog is rather distinct from Filipino (for further info pls. read I.R. Cruz's article Bukod na Bukod), I think that we should recast Tagalog Wikipedia into the Filipino Wikipedia.
BULARAN (talk) 06:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
To give you a hint, Filipino incorporates terms from other languages such as Cebuano, Iloko, English, etc. while Tagalog does not. For example what you would call a baterya in Manila would be called a pila in Batangas and Laguna (especially among the elders, Tagalog is a dying language, you know...) As far as I.R. Cruz is concerned, I remember reading from Bukod na Bukod that in Tagalog, the natural sentence order is predicate-subject, while Filipino follows the subject-predicate order (di-karaniwang ayos). He raises some more points, but I can't remember them anymore... BULARAN (talk) 00:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Bro, the example is not too representative, pila is actually Spanish for battery (Tagalog baterya wc must have come from English not Spanish)... :)--Jondel (talk) 00:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
How does Tagalog not incorporate terms from other languages? I'd certainly believe Tagalog borrows from other languages the same way "Filipino" does. Case and point the battery example: both baterya and pila come from Spanish batería (the general word for battery, and in the context of this discussion actually refers to rechargeable batteries) and pila electrica (alkaline batteries) respectively. Words in the lexicon are constantly being enriched and supplanted by borrowed terms (palabaybayan and ortograpiya, bughaw and asul, talampakan and piye, pulo and isla, etc.), and has been the case for hundreds of years. To say that Tagalog rejects borrowings is completely ludicrous. --Sky Harbor(talk)12:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Oops, looks like you're perfectly right... My bad... It turns out that Tagalog indeed borrows terms, mostly from Spanish and English. Maybe you could read this for some clarification...[28] Peace! ^_^ BULARAN (talk) 05:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
The problem with the term "Tagalog" is that it implies inclusiveness and that, apart from the Manileño dialect (Filipino), it also includes other dialects of Tagalog (such as Batangueño and Marinduqueño), and possibly other orthographies (such as Baybayin). Now since that Wikipedia only uses the nationally sanctioned variety, there's no point in implying inclusiveness.--ᜊᜓᜅ ᜅ᜔ ᜑᜎᜋᜅ᜔ ᜋᜑᜒᜏᜄ (ᜂᜐᜉ)Baybayin01:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
What makes you think that Batagueños, Bulaqueños and Marinduqueños can't contribute to the Tagalog Wikipedia in their own dialect? Other than the fact that Baybayin is a dead orthography for all practical purposes (and that Tagalog has been written using the Latin alphabet for over 200 years), contributors to the Tagalog Wikipedia are free to contribute in any dialect they please. The fact though that the vast majority of contributors contribute in Manila Tagalog (a.k.a. Filipino) is not an indicator of exclusivity; rather, it highlights the current situation of the community as a whole. --Sky Harbor(talk)03:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Bagamat mayroong kakayahang mag-ambag ang mga Batagueño, mga Bulaqueño at mga Marinduqueño sa Wikipedyang Tagalog, hindi ibig-sabihin na madali nila itong nagagawa. Dahil sa umiiral na batas doon, kakaunti lamang ang kakayahan nilang makapag-ambag. Kung tutuusin Wikang Manileño ang katangi-tanging umiiral doon kaya't mas mabuting magpakatotoo na lamang tayo at tawaging Filipino na lang ang Wikipedyang iyon.--ᜊᜓᜅ ᜅ᜔ ᜑᜎᜋᜅ᜔ ᜋᜑᜒᜏᜄ (ᜂᜐᜉ)Baybayin05:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Sa paksa naman ng Alibata, hindi ibig sabihin na di-gaanong karami ang gumagamit nito nagkakahulugan nang patay na panitik siya. Bagamat di-gaanong kasikat ang isang panitik na ito, maaari pa rin siyang tawaging "buhay" dahil mahirap mamatay ang mga panitik. Ang kailangan lamang nito para ituring na "buhay" ay mga uri ng mga naisulat na nababasa na gawa sa panitik na ito. Dahil sa nababasa at nagagamit pa ang panitik (lalo na't tinanggap ito ng ISO 15924), buhay-na-buhay pa ito.--ᜊᜓᜅ ᜅ᜔ ᜑᜎᜋᜅ᜔ ᜋᜑᜒᜏᜄ (ᜂᜐᜉ)Baybayin05:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
What does the law have anything to do with the inability of non-Manila Tagalophone speakers to contribute to the Tagalog Wikipedia? Sure the law upholds Manila Tagalog as a "standard" by which Filipino will be based upon, but by virtue of the Tagalog Wikipedia being called the Tagalog Wikipedia, it implies that regardless if your Manileño, Quezonian or Lagunense, your register of Tagalog is acceptible. You're arguing as if we should have a separate Philippine English Wikipedia simply because American English is the norm. That simply does not make sense, and it is those types of delineations that Filipinists have tried to argue for years and failed simply because the linguistic community isn't on their side. If you cannot understand the policy surrounding the use of Tagalog on the Tagalog Wikipedia (WP:SALIN and others), I can always refer you to AnakngAraw, who had a bigger hand in shaping the policy than I did.
If you think Baybayin has a shot at being revived, I'd give it as much of a chance as what is being done with Javanese. Despite their best efforts to revive the Javanese script, the entire Wikipedia is still written in the Latin alphabet, and no one contributes in the Javanese script. Wikipedia is not an outlet to revive scripts: we are bound by the status quo. --Sky Harbor(talk)06:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Mukhang suko na ko doon sa isyu ng Piliino-Filipino-Tagalog. Dun naman sa paggamit ng Alibata, kinausap ko na si AnakngAraw at pumayag na siyang gamitin 'to sa mga pangalan ng mga artikulo sa ibabaw ng pahina. Doon at doon lamang. Sige. Salamat.--ᜊᜓᜅ ᜅ᜔ ᜑᜎᜋᜅ᜔ ᜋᜑᜒᜏᜄ (ᜂᜐᜉ)Baybayin09:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't go simply by the word of a single administrator. Your proposal is a major editorial decision which requires the consensus of the community in order to take effect, as Baybayin implementation requires a standardization of the orthography where one currently does not exist. If you're so dead set on introducing Baybayin into the Tagalog Wikipedia, I'd highly suggest getting obtaining consensus first instead of doing things unilaterally. --Sky Harbor(talk)09:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Note: User 23prootie has been into different situation where he implemented rules based on his want/s, and was notorious of not following or presenting a consensus.--JL 09q?c12:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello, mga Tambay. What is the Tambayan's consensus regarding the insistence of certain editors to include the Spanish version of a city's official name in the article's infobox? Is it necessary to include, for example, "Ciudad de Bacolod" in Bacolod City's infobox's "other name" parameter? Your input is much appreciated. Cheers! — •KvЯt GviЯnЭlБ•Speak!02:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Remove. Spanish is no longer an official language nor a widely used local language. We only indicate the names in English and the major language(s) of the city (e.g., we should indicate the Chavacano name of Zamboanga City in the infobox). --seav (talk) 04:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, that echoes my own sentiments; I received the following message from an editor who took offense when I reverted his edits to that effect. I interpret some of the lines as personal attacks, but I replied as civilly as I can. Cheers! — •KvЯt GviЯnЭlБ•Speak!04:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
We can reinstate the Spanish name if, and only if, the city uses it as an official name and provide a citation for that. --Bluemask (talk) 07:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree. The only thing that differentiates the English forms from their Spanish counterparts is the dropping of the accent marks, except in the case of ñ. --Pare Mo (talk) 11:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Spanish names should only be included in infoboxes for cities where Spanish (or its forms) is widely used, e.g., Zamboanga. That's for me... BULARAN (talk) 06:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Spanish official names are an inherent feature of Chavacano. So naturally, the official name of Zamboanga City in Chavacano is the same as that in Spanish. --Sky Harbor(talk)14:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Jacque Bermejo
She's a highly insensitive bitch, to the point that somebody made an attack page on her a few hours ago. Mahiya ka naman! (You should be ashamed of yourself!) --Eaglestorm (talk) 01:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
I only read her post at this moment,
“
buti n lng am hir in dubai! maybe so many sinners bak der! so yeah deserving wat hapend (sic) (I am thankful that I'm here in Dubai! Maybe there are so many sinners back there [in the Philippines], so yeah, deserving what happened [to them]).
”
FYI: News sources said that she is a marketing executive in Dubai, UAE. According to ABS-CBN Middle East, somebody hacked her social networking accounts whatsoever. Wikipedia article was created featuring her, and twice was deleted because it was an attack page. Haay... Does she really deserve an article here in WP? (Not considering the fact that she caused stir and patriotic uproar among us, or personal offense; {I, too, was really offended.} but by just the way "she"/"alleged hacker" done to the internet community?)--JL 09q?c12:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
No, I don't think so, considering that the attack page's been shot down. I'd bet something about Flex Naval (another FB buti-nga-sa-inyo! basher) would be speedied as well too. Whether she did it or not, the damage's been done. --Eaglestorm (talk) 13:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
I am in a rush right now so I apologize for being unable to act swiftly, but I did have a peek into his/her editing history, and I will promise swift action on this one (warning first, then block if ineffective). --Sky Harbor(talk)22:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually, this is the second time that he didi it. The first one, I reported it to the admin who blocked him before, who seems to havent logged in for days yet. But then after I reverted all his edits, he did it again. So annoying!...By the way, here's another one who apparently, keeps uploading images without copyright restrictions, he totally ruined some of the pages, specaially the Sineserye Presents page. I have reverted it now, but I have a feeling that he will do it again when he logs in.--CocaCirca2009 (talk) 22:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
First, thank you for a record high participation on PhilWiki Chat 11 and apologies for a chaotic chat. I dont know who dragged uninvited folks in the conference but we achieved (somehow) interest from newbies. I have sent an email to the TWG members to fine tune the remaining items in the By-Laws. We will also look into the constitution of PhiWUG.org, AUGPhil.org and existing WMF Chapters for guidance. I hope we can get this approved by October 17 and processing of papers be done in the succeeding two weeks. --Exec8 (talk) 18:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
For everyone's reference, the technical working group is composed of myself, exec8, Jojit and seav. If anyone else is interested in joining the TWG, please inform any one of us. In addition, in preparation for eventual incorporation, we will also need translation groups for those willing to translate the Articles of Incorporation and By-laws into other Philippine languages. --Sky Harbor(talk)03:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Got the email. Sorry for having been absent at the chat, I was offline for most of the weekend for a very, very personal reason. Just to comment, I'm in favor of deferring the provision for creating subchapters. Simpler is better: let's get WMPH working first, and then play along by ear if and when the need for establishing subchapters comes up. --- Tito Pao (talk) 08:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I haven't receive any email from you. Can you resend it? By the way, there is already an organization called PHIWUG (Philippine Windows User Group), so very close to PhilWUG. I suggest that we use PhilWiki.org. --Jojit (talk) 13:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
By convention, Wikimedia chapters are supposed to use wikimedia.xx domains. In the Philippines' case, our domain would be www.wikimedia.org.ph. --Sky Harbor(talk)14:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I know but for the meantime we should have a different domain name while we are still working on WMPH unless we are able to establish WMPH first. --Jojit (talk) 01:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Wikimedia Venezuela, which is not even an official WMF chapter, already registered www.wikimedia.org.ve. Why can't we do the same? --Sky Harbor(talk)07:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually, we can. I'm only worried with the legal implications of registering www.wikimedia.org.ph before WMPH becomes a chapter. Did Wikimedia Venezuela got permission to Wikimedia US? What is the process? I think they got permission before they were able to register that domain. --Jojit (talk) 09:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Maybe we can give the WMF peeps a heads-up (as a courtesy) that we intend to register the domain before we've become finally incorporated? Maski na sa pangalan ni (Even if in the name of) Sky (for example), for starters. The last thing we ever want is having a complete stranger to WMPH register it before we incorporate. By then, it'll be difficult for us to get it, especially if the squatter names an exorbitantly scandalous price tag. --- Tito Pao (talk) 09:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I encourage everyone to look at the by-laws. Lets have it ratified this coming 10-10-09 so that we can focus on documentary requirements the following week. I hope that there are no more contentious issues in the by-laws by that time since the revised one is there for three weeks now and it was changed once and the the discussion for crafting the by-laws is over two years now. --Exec8 (talk) 03:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
By the way, I forgot to mention that all signatories should indicate their TIN in the documents. You can indicate your TIN here if you choose to or you can email Exec8 or me the TIN if you want some privacy. I'll be coordinating with Cloudhand once we are ready to submit the documents. Another thing, is the list of incorporators final? Should we include Lenticel? Tito Pao will replace him if he declines. --Jojit (talk) 04:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
This article claims to be about the "fourth biggest metropolitan area in the Philippines.". The references don't verify anything and are kind of suspicious, and google returns next to nothing about this area. On the talk page, another editor has questioned the truthfulness of the article. I put a hoax tag on. Hopefully, an editor here can examine it. Thank You. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 11:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
WP:V says, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." According, I've added a {{fact}} tag to the Metro Cagayan de Oro article following the assertion challenged above. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:37, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Manila 6
Any weekends starting October 24 will be fine for me. Due to our (very) lengthy discussions on Manila 5, we initially agreed to meet at SM City North EDSA for the next meetup. I just been to the tech lounge at the 4th floor Annex. It is spacious for "tambays" and the free wifi is good. There is a cafe close by. We will consider this as the last meetup before the launch of Wikimedia Philippines. --Exec8 (talk) 13:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm OK with any weekend starting October 24. Hopefully nothing of importance comes up at that time. Count me in. --- Tito Pao (talk) 00:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I told you during Manila 5 that I intend to fly to Clark from Manila on the 24th (inaugural MNL-CRK-MNL of Zest Airways). I will only go if I do not buy a ticket. --Sky Harbor(talk)11:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I suggest that we meet when all documents are ready to sign. Also, we should limit the meeting to about two hours and discuss WMPH related topics only. Other topics can be effectively discussed here at the Tambayan. If meeting in a weekend does not work, we can meet on a weeknight. --Jojit (talk) 03:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Since there are no major changes in the By-laws, we can consider it as approved. I recommend everybody to suggest a date, time and venue now otherwise the activity on the 24th will push through. This meetup is solely for incorporation and organization-related concerns only. --Exec8 (talk) 08:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Ok. I think I will let someone take the initiative to have a new meetup. The By-Laws are there for almost three years and remains a road block. If this task remain not part of your to-do list I might consider backing out of this incorporation process and return the money that was deposited to my bank account. --Exec8 (talk) 15:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
The By-laws remain a road block precisely because people are unresponsive to it, or they feel that they've given enough commentary for me to do the work. Consensus shows that sub-chapters should be removed for now, and I'm most likely going to remove that section. The only other major road block is the scope clause, which we can easily re-write (and in fact I'm thinking how to re-write this). By-laws are inherently imperfect and are subject to change. But to willingly back out of a venture you've invested so much time in is something that I'm not willing to sacrifice. The end goal of this community is to be able to form a cohesive identity through a strong, cohesive organization, and we should exert all means to pursue it. I don't like defeatism to ruin the morale of those who already said they're willing to go at all ends to get this done. --Sky Harbor(talk)00:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
UPDATE: Article VIII, the article on sub-chapters, has been removed. I'm amenable to discussing this at a later time. Meanwhile, I'm working out the scope clause. Please give any and all suggestions as to who can be a member of WMPH. --Sky Harbor(talk)01:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Last Manila 5, Cloudhand suggested that we should include non-Wikipedia editors as well. As long as he or she is willing to be active in WMPH projects then that person can be a member. --Jojit (talk) 06:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
BTW, Sky, when will you finish overhauling the By-laws? We need to know so that we can plan the meetup, submission of documents etc. Take note that the name reservation is only up to December 22, 2009. I hope you can finish it a month before that so Cloudhand and I will have an ample time to submit the documents. It's not that easy to file documents in a government agency like SEC. --Jojit (talk) 08:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
The overhaul is largely complete. However, ironing out the kinks requires the cooperation of those willing to cooperate. An effort similar to last year's would be greatly appreciated, especially since we're so close to getting everything done. --Sky Harbor(talk)08:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
