Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines/Archive 24

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26→Archive 30

Vandalizers again

There's another GMA fanatic vandaliser. You can see in his contributions that he cleanly edits GMA pages, but he seems to vandalise mostly ABS-CBN pages. And I think that the User talk:121.54.100.146 has changed his IP address his IP address. You can see the pattern that he keeps inserting Hayden Kho and Katrina Halili Precious Hearts Romances Presents, Ang Lalaking Nagmahal Sa Akin and Bud Brothers Series (TV series).--CocaCirca2009 (talk) 13:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Just a few points for clarification. The first IP address (222.127.223.73) actually looks like it's assigned to an ISP, not to a certain "Allan Abarquez". WHOIS records will usually contain names of persons who serve as the administrative or technical contacts for that IP address (or even an domain name). In this case, it looks like whoever added the IP template on that talk page actually put the name of an ISP's employee!...I corrected the header all the same. In other words, it does look like this IP address is a shared IP address assigned to a particular locality, and we may be talking of more than one vandal here.
As for the other two IP addresses (121.54.100.146 and 124.104.131.201), it appears that they come from different providers: one from PLDT and one from Smart Telecoms. It isn't likely for someone to have the IP address changed just as easily from one ISP to another, so best guess is that what happened is that either #1.a single person is editing from two different locations (e.g. one is a work/school computer, the other is a home PC), or #2.by coincidence or by collaboration, a group of fanboys using both these IP addresses have agreed to make the edits at approximately the same time, or #3.someone is using a computer from a place that has two or more ISP subscriptions (perhaps he's in a large company?). --- Tito Pao (talk) 02:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Amapola Cabase

Hi! The article on the singer Amapola Cabase is being discussed for deletion. The problem is the apparent lack of sources on the subject. Could you help in the discussion? Thanks! --Cyclopia - talk 14:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC) I can find sources,if you want Zobango (talk) 19:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Unnecessary stubs

An anon user, 86.159.79.184 has been putting a shitload of stubs in many Philippine TV show articles. He still continues with the practice (have reverted some of the edits), even after being reprimanded. Just a heads-up. --Eaglestorm (talk) 02:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Give him a second warning, then give him another warning with a threat to have him blocked, then ask an admin to use the banhammer. TheCoffee (talk) 13:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Katipunan

I am considering cleaning the whole article. Is it alright to include the Philippine Revolution and Spanish Response section? Many history books write Katipunan as a separate chapter, followed by the Revolution chapter. If we are going to include the Philippine Revolution section and the Response, then, it will make the article very long.. To think that there is an existing Philippine Revolution article.--JL 09 q?c 02:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Why the preponderance on Zaide? Come on, his books are prehistoric. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.54.29.69 (talk) 06:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Stick to the guy himself, man

Zobango (talk) 19:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

It is very hard to separate the Katipunan from the Philippine Revolution, although, maybe, it would pay to follow Agoncillo... Zaide's good for detail, but Agoncillo captures the temporality better.... BULARAN on 119.111.41.82 (talk) 00:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Off the topic: It seems that the machine I am currently using has a notorious editing history... This machine is computer terminal # 19 of the DLSU cybernook... so it's public... the bad edits aren't mine...hehehe ^_^ BULARAN on 119.111.41.82 (talk) 00:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Joseph Estrada

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

User:Lambanog keeps on modifying other users' comments on the article's talk page, I do not know if it is still alright to revert it since Lambanog is still decided to revert all of it, then modify it. He meant that it was written very poor, but come to think of it, it is a talk page: i.e., talk pages language/grammar are usually disregarded in GA or FA or any Wikipedia review.--JL 09 q?c 10:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Lambanog has no right to tinker with others' comments, slap him with a uw-tpv. --Eaglestorm (talk) 11:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Please actually look at my changes and compare before passing judgment. If you have a problem with them I'd like to know what they are. Feel free to highlight any objectionable or questionable alterations. I did not mean to alter any of the comments and I do not believe that I have done so---any bad grammar has been left intact. All I did was to organize them for clarity following the preferred indentation format and logical grouping. Before my reorganization not all responses were in chronological order and some did not directly address the comment immediately preceding them. One primary thread was talking about one thing---"Estrada's achievements"---and then wildly veering into another topic "evidence of his guilt". I created that new heading and moved and grouped all comments related to it under it taking care that doing so would not change the meaning of the comments under the initial heading. I am confident any fair review will bear me out. Lambanog (talk) 12:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Lambanog, ordering the talk page comments chronologically aren't necessary. For example, if a user A created a thread by October 1, another user B created an unrelated thread by October 2, then another user C replied on A's thread. If you will still insist on arranging it in chronology, it may happen that C must come after B not A. Then C's comment per B is very out of this world. Finally, talk pages discussion usually goes sangandaan, it goes from different branches to another as the discussion continues. If you'll insist on regrouping it in chronology as well as by relevance under a heading, then, readers in the future will be confused on how's the discussion gone except that readers will take a look on the history (which others don't do). It might be the talk goes on this topic, then goes to another topic, but still related, yet you know that they are irrelevant.--JL 09 q?c 12:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Rewording others' comments is still talk page vandalism. and you have no right to unilaterally reorganize the comments for clarity. I agree with JL09's assessment about your edits. Please restore the original order of the discussions. --Eaglestorm (talk) 12:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Identify the objectionably reworded comments. From what I can remember the only parts that I changed and made more prominent were a couple of links that were unclear tucked in as they were at the end of a paragraph and the spacing of some bulleted ideas that were formatted as a paragraph and thus an unwieldy mess. Still is if you ask me, but doing any more might require substituting words and that has not been done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lambanog (talk • contribs) 12:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Almost forgot, I did erase a chain letter section that other than mocking Loi Estrada served no purpose. Are those supposed to be left alone or are we allowed to use sound judgment to remove them? Lambanog (talk) 13:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
You are not allowed to edit other people's comments. No exceptions. It is rude. You can remove them but you'd have to place them in an archive, with an edit summary to let other people know what are you doing. –Howard the Duck 13:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Howard the Duck I ask once again, what edit do you find objectionable? Copy and paste the offending changes. I would say it is rude to say my changes are editing other people's comments in a bad way especially when I wonder if you've actually taken the time to properly review them. As I have noted in my last restoration, you yourself by undoing my restored revision erased those comments. Before my revisions the file was 28kb. I rearranged it and took out the chain letter section so it became 26kb. GraYoshi2x came along and erased many comments reducing the page to 18kb and you've been restoring and defending his changed version and eliminated a lot of the comments you say need to be preserved. Maybe you should spend time looking at his changes and the ruckus he has been causing instead of wasting your time on me. If you wish send this to arbitration, do so. I'd like to see how good their administration is too. Better to know now if any contributions I make to this site are wasted on it or not. Lambanog (talk) 13:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
If I may intervene from an administrator's perspective: if all of you take the time to read WP:TALK (not to be rude here, but I am under the presumption that some, or maybe even all, of you have not, given all the accusations being thrown around), you'll see that Lambanog's motives for editing are valid. To quote:
I've been skimming through the talk page history and I see no proof that the edits being made are being made to deliberately change the meaning of the comments being left, which is the absolute no-go for editing comments. Minor formatting changes, on the other hand, are okay as long as they do not change the meaning of the comments. In addition, removing irrelevant discussion (irrelevant meaning discussion not focused on improving the article) is appropriate under the guidelines as well. --Sky Harbor (talk) 13:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
You see, it may not be wrong but I'd rather create content, than say edit other people's comments on talk pages. If an admin edited your comment for say, spelling or grammar on a online forum, how would you feel? Basically I won't even touch an editor's comments, but I can comment below what the proper spelling, link etc. is. –Howard the Duck 14:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes. It's the point we want to explain.--JL 09 q?c 14:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't want my comments edited as much as the next guy would (I'm currently dealing with this issue down at the Tagalog Wikipedia). However, the point there is to leave as much of the commentary as undisturbed as possible, and to only edit when there is an absolute sense of urgency. I wouldn't mind messy commentary being edited so that it looks more presentable, as long as they do not change the meaning of the comment in question. If the edits change the sense or meaning of the comment however, then I would have every right to be incensed. I'm currently not seeing any of that.
Personally, however, I'd prefer people focus their energies in editing articles and making content rather than cleaning up talk pages. --Sky Harbor (talk) 14:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I would just like to point out that as much as I would have liked to correct some of the bad grammar used in some of the comments, aside from some corrections to the header and format changes that I consider for the benefit of the group, I have refrained from correcting the words in the individual posts themselves although in adjusting the formatting I might possibly have introduced a minor cosmetic change here and there but I don't recall doing so. As for why am I bothering to reformat the talk pages, I consider the way they are laid out as reflecting on the people discussing on them as much as the quality of the articles they create in the same way one gets an impression of a people from the way the airport or the streets of their city is laid out. I'd like to leave a positive impression of organization, not chaos. Lambanog (talk) 14:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
For the nth time, Lambanog reverted the talk page at the same day.--JL 09 q?c 14:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Justified because the user comments you are all so staunchly defending as having a right to not be altered have been removed by your insistence on restoring GraYoshi2x's edit. Tell me why his edit is better when it eliminates so may comments and if I understand and agree I will leave it alone. Why are you all so willing to erase the comments but make such a big deal of reformatting them? Lambanog (talk) 14:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
If you think that GraYoshi2x removed some contents in the talk, you might also wanted to look at the history of the page. GraYoshi2x restored the talk to the same design as it was before you modified it. Then here comes the huge cutting. If you think that GraYoshi2x's edits are harmful to the page, then it is better to restore it the way before you go through modifying it. Sky Harbor cites WP:TPO (which says "It is not necessary to bring talk pages to publishing standards, so there is no need to correct typing/spelling errors, grammar, etc. It tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting.") WP:TPO listed down relevant rules when modifying talk pages which you failed to do so. And, this edit. Lastly, you may want to familiarize yourself that reverting 3 times within a 24-hour period can be considered as edit war.--JL 09 q?c 15:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I have compared the earlier and later edits and from what I can see GraYoshi2x deleted a lot of comments. If you wish I will post the missing comments here. Moreover, GraYoshi2x has a history of deleting things arbitrarily from some of the comments on his user page. Maybe you should pay closer attention to his edits? I think he may have edited the page the way he did because I had earlier edited a page on crispy fried chicken that he seems to have objected to. Whatever the case, comments are removed because you are restoring his edit. Is there a reason for this? Then please explain your justification for removing all those comments. Is this considered an edit war? I think I am following guidelines. I don't mind an adjudication. It would be helpful to see how the process works and now is as good a time as any. Edit: revised hyperlink. Lambanog (talk) 15:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Okay, calm down people! Based on the diff provided by JL 09, I do notice that some comments were removed. Now whether or not these comments are constructive to article development is up to those with the motive to remove/restore them to decide. --Sky Harbor (talk) 16:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Sky Harbor, I would appreciate it if you would post the differences or missing items that you find. I don't think there should be any aside from the chain letter section. It's possible that I inadvertently left something out but I don't think so. More likely my rearrangement has made it a bit difficult to see that all the comments are there just in different places. On the other hand GraYoshi2x's edit has clearly excised many comments. I would like to know if you see any justification for his edit and the support JL 09 and Howard the Duck are giving to it by restoring it. From my perspective JL 09 and Howard the Duck have not closely looked at the changes and are simply taking GraYoshi2x's comments at face value. Lambanog (talk) 17:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
WP:TPO. And please stop using me as a scapegoat. GraYoshi2x►talk 20:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Sige, sabihin mo nga sa amin lahat GraYoshi2x kung bakit dito ka at bakit sa tingin mo may kakayahan ka magpasiya sa ibat-ibang sinasabi ng ibat-ibang tao tungkol kay Erap. Pumasok ka sa diskusyon at inalis mo ang mga ilang sulat pero may alam ka ba talaga sa kanya? Bakit sa lahat ng paksang kaya mong pagbutihin, ang pahina ni Erap ang pinili mo? Ano ang dahilan? Lambanog (talk) 23:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
(slightly OT) Umm...GraYoshi2x doesn't look like Filipino, based on the little information that I can glean in his user page. I think the Joseph Estrada article just happened to be in his watchlist. I see no problem with that and with him editing the article, in the same way that you can edit other articles (such as that of Paul Krugman and Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky that don't have anything to do with the Philippines...so please cut him some slack. And please refrain from using Tagalog on the English Wikipedia, too. Thanks. --- Tito Pao (talk) 01:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
This discussion has gone on for far too long because of Lambanog's intransigent behaviour. I have archived all but the two most recent threads before he came in and disrupted everything. The chain letter's been deleted. Don't even think about tinkering that archive.--Eaglestorm (talk) 08:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Singkamas, Makati City

I nominated this article for deletion for lack of notability. --Scorpion prinz (Talk | contribs) 06:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Anon IP address copy-pasted SkyCable into the Romany Wikipedia po.

Why is this SkyCable article obviously copied and pasted from the English Wikipedia into the rmy wikipedia?! According to the history there it was done by some IP address vandal. Obviously i don't know their language. Could anyone please remove that from the rmy wikipedia? Pretty please? ._.; TheTechieGeek63 (talk) 16:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the IP address, I'm pretty sure it's the same dude who's causing trouble over at the Cebuano Wikipedia. --Pare Mo (talk) 11:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Um, could anyone please delete it from the rmy wikipedia? It isn't even translated into the Romany language at all. Pretty please? TheTechieGeek63 (talk) 05:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Komikon 2009

The Kon was great. Jordz and I linked up there. We talked about the status of the by-laws and I later gave him a so-called WikiPilipinas User Manual that the Vibal people were giving away alongside copies of a graphic novel of Francisco Coching's komiks series el Indio (I might think of writing about it once I finish reading). They were one of the Kon's sponsors. --Eaglestorm (talk) 18:16, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Please elaborate on the WPinas user manual. --Sky Harbor (talk) 05:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't able to fully browse the manual - gave it to Jordz as soon as I was well clear of the booth (I even thought of throwing it in the trash), although on the back of the manual, there were some snippets of news items about WPilipinas that I suspect was taken from the WP article. Hell, it could even be a supercondensed MOS. Jordz said since I was not interested in the manual, why not give it to him, so he could study why WPilipinas so wants to counter WP in the Wikisphere. I hope it doesn't encourage him to defect. --Eaglestorm (talk) 06:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I think this so-called WPinas "manual" is the same brochure that Vibal Inc. distributed during WPinas' launch a few years back. Basically, it just contains a short history of the WPinas project and a few how-to articles. --- Tito Pao (talk) 07:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
WPinas and WP's differences are fairly superfluous in terms of writing style. The greater differences are between the Tagalog Wikipedia and WikiFilipino. --Sky Harbor (talk) 14:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Hehehe...I was there and since the second Komikon in 2006 at the UP Bahay ng Alumni. That's why I created the article Komikon †Bloodpack† 12:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Gina de Venecia

Another editor has nominated the article Gina de Venecia for deletion. You may wish to review the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gina de Venecia. -- Eastmain (talk) 01:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Siling labuyo

I listed it because it is a translation of Thai pepper in Filipino language, and thus qualifies merging to Thai pepper instead.--JL 09 q?c 07:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Redirect is a better option.. way better than a delete. Well, its on AFD. ax (talk) 07:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

1st Bikol Wikipedia Meeting

This is our 1st Bikol Wikipedia Meeting. More photos here. --Filipinayzd (talk) 08:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

You put it in the wrong page (better to create a meetup page on the Bikol Wikipedia and a corresponding page on the English Wikipedia). How on Earth are you affiliated with Wikipedians in Israel? --Sky Harbor (talk) 11:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Moved to Wikipedia:Meetup/Naga 1 and Wikimedia Philippines Bicol, now talk about sub-chapters... --Exec8 (talk) 14:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Updated to Naga 2 since Naga 1 (Nov 2008) was not published. --Exec8 (talk) 15:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Someone hasn't been updated: the sub-chapters provision was removed. --Sky Harbor (talk) 16:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Additional info: Sub-chapter section in the by-laws was removed for the meantime because it is too complex and we are rushing the approval of the By-laws. (Visit the WMPH By-laws talk page for more details.) --Jojit (talk) 07:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
We are not in a rush anymore jojit since the expected members who will scrutinize and approve the by-laws are no longer active. --Exec8 (talk) 12:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I'm thinking of conducting a members' audit. I'm expecting attrition of the current list of participants. Now if we do fall below critical mass, that's where we have a problem. --Sky Harbor (talk) 13:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
I can only think of about 15 persons in the participants list (16 if we include Cloudhand who is not in the list but active offline) that are still active in Wikipedia projects. But if participants will fall below critical mass, it won't be a problem, we can still invite other people. --Jojit (talk) 01:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
In any case, it is still being scrutinize as you can see in the By-laws talk page. Perhaps other participants are hesitant in examining the By-laws because it is too legalese. That is why I'll be calling the lawyer today to further scrutinize the By-laws. --Jojit (talk) 01:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Corazon Aquino

An anon user, 122.53.173.40, has been making wholesale edits to the article in the past few weeks. I understand the thing about being bold, but the user has not sought consensus before fixing this up. What do you think? --Eaglestorm (talk) 06:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, former president Aquino's article page is in my watchlist and I notice huge edits done by anon user, and I can't verify if it's the same user or an IP range. Maybe we should conduct an "investigation" if his edits are copy-pasted, etc.--JL 09 q?c 13:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

WMPH update

I contacted Anyo Niminus's lawyer friend to review the WMPH By-laws and give some legal advice. He is available tomorrow (October 28) in Ortigas area at around 5:00pm and onwards. Please contact me if you are available and interested to join and meet the lawyer. I'll be watching this page up to 10:00pm today. Seav and Sky Harbor should attend since they contributed heavily on the By-laws. --Jojit (talk) 07:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll see if I can be there...if I don't have overtime work, I will be out of the office by 6pm. But the waiting time at the MRT stations aren't exactly good at that time :P --- Tito Pao (talk) 08:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I think I can come. That is, if I'm not training debaters for the Philippine Schools Debate Championship next week. --Sky Harbor (talk) 11:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, I just texted the lawyer to meet us at Bo's Coffee at SM Megamall at around 6:30 pm. He has not replied yet as of this writing but probably, he will reply tomorrow. Perhaps we can stay up to 8:00 pm at the meeting place. I will keep you posted here in Tambayan regarding this meetup. By the way Sky, is your cellphone number the same since Manila 1? If not, please email me your number so that I can contact you tomorrow. Other interested participants can email their number to me as well. --Jojit (talk) 14:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I can't come tomorrow. I have work until 7pm and I have a meeting at 8pm. If necessary, just call me on my cellphone or text me if there you absolutely need my opinion on stuff. Be sure to bring a print-out of the talk page of the By-laws and also have the AoI looked at as well. --seav (talk) 15:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not available as well. --Exec8 (talk) 02:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
My number is outdated. I'll be updating it. --Sky Harbor (talk) 18:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The lawyer already confirmed this meeting. So, it will push through at the specified time and venue. --Jojit (talk) 01:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm going, and I'll bring a printout of the By-laws. Now who's going? --Sky Harbor (talk) 05:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
So far, only you and I confirmed in this meeting, aside from the lawyer of course. I think this is fine since you are the key person in WMPH By-laws. ;) But everyone is welcome to attend. BTW, just in case you didn't know, Bo's Coffee is located at the 5th level Mega Atrium. Also, my cellphone number stays the same. --Jojit (talk) 07:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Creation of Boys Over Flowers (Philippine TV series)

I guess it's a strong no. Philippine showing of Boys Over Flowers isn't different to Boys Over Flowers (TV series) except that the former has Tagalog dubbing. What I mean is that the Philippine TV series article should be deleted, because it is only a re-"show" of an existing Korean article in Tagalog language. The TV series isn't a remake, unlike Marimar or Rosalinda.--JL 09 q?c 13:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
It's not, unless ABS got some funny ideas about a remake. The best thing to do is put the PHL flagicon on the original arictle's list of channels. --Eaglestorm (talk) 02:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Somebody block him already - User talk:121.54.100.146

  • Can somebody please block this guy already. I have reported him several times here and I am getting tired of reverting his vandalisms. He keeps changing the names and TV show listed on actors and actresses' pages thinking that he's a casting director or some sort. He has been blocked before with these reasons, yet he still keep doing it. Check out his contributions page. Please, somebody block this guy for a longer time, if he gets blocked indefinitly (since this is like his third block), He seriously won't be a loss in wikipedia since all of his edits (and i mean all) are pure vandalism..--CocaCirca2009 (talk) 09:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
The next time he commits vandalism, please inform me and I will block him. Apparently it seems that this is a shared IP (Smart Bro IPs are shared among multiple users across different computers and systems), so we have to be careful. --Sky Harbor (talk) 10:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Anon blocked for two months after further investigation. Vandalism continued despite the warning I left. --Sky Harbor (talk) 14:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks so much! This is like the third time I reported him LOL --CocaCirca2009 (talk) 15:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Kalibo Cable channel list.

I have hit a hollow-block wall trying to get the Kalibo Cable article to comply with (or at least not to completely disregard) WP:Verifiability policy and Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Color coding and Wikipedia:Colours#Using colours in articles guidelines. I can't get anyone to discuss this with me on the article talk page and I don't want to edit war over it. Though my CATV service is from Kalibo Cable, I've thrown my hands in the air in frustration and de-watchlisted the article as not worth the effort. Perhaps someone here might want to take a whack at it. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Page removal

Democraticsystem and his edits has been into my watchlist for a very long time since he sent me an annoying personal attack many months ago. Even though his edits are constructive to the Philippine (and other countries') presidents, I think he "protects" the article for Joseph Estrada very well. Today, he removed the charter change and agrarian reform sections without some edit summaries. To my perspective, it is okay to remove sections as long as reasons were stated on the edit summary. Into this event, I reverted his edits twice today, restored some of deleted materials (I don't know, maybe there are too many things he removed from the article), then he reverted it without giving any edit summaries why.--JL 09 q?c 11:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Removing Former Dj's?

Before the Late 2009, Almost all radio stations in Metro Manila, Removing all the Former DJ's Section, Please added former dj's again!, GOD BLESS! - User:Gabbyshoe (talk) - 06:29, 03 November 2009 (UTC)

What?--JL 09 q?c 14:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Blatant much? --Sky Harbor (talk) 17:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Hermano Pule

Rewrite of Hermano Pule is in progress. Anyone is welcome to help. Images would be helpful. Viriditas (talk) 12:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Chatroom

Due to our problems with Yahoo Messenger in the past, I decided to create a new site for us to chat. pinoywikipedia.ning.com/ requires registration for first time users. You are free to use your aliases on your registration. I will just wait for someone to organize the next chat (PhilWiki 12). --Exec8 (talk) 14:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC).

The ning thingy is the same with the animax comunity [1] so is that why I got the same name and avatar after signing up? Ryomaandres (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC).

FAR listing

I have nominated Manila Light Rail Transit System for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Arsenikk (talk) 23:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, looks like it's time to clean up the grand dame of our FAs. Help is very much appreciated! --Sky Harbor (talk) 06:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing in TV show articles

It seems that much of the activity in the Philippine TV show articles (Darna (2009 TV series), Full House (Philippines TV series), etc.) is unsourced anon additions - specifically to the cast lists. I have been watching some of these and trying to keep the lists at what is supported by a reliable source. Is this something that members of this project would normally be paying attention to, or are those articles considered low priority? I suppose a semi-protect might be in order if there continues to be mostly unsourced additions to the articles. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 12:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The worse that could happen is if those anons and noob members add too much fancruft on the articles, of which I have no qualms at reverting. Blake Gripling (talk) 01:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Teodoro Locsin, Jr.

Created the Teddyboy Locsin page because I didn't think it could wait, but of course, all I could make in that time was a stub. I suppose there are others out there interested in beefing it up? Thanks. -- Alternativity (talk) 07:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Dorseoa's edits and Cebuano people

I need your help monitoring the Cebuano people article. Lately Dorseoa has been pushing his inaccurate description of Cebuanos, defining them as simply an ethnic group in Cebu, implying that there are other Filipinos who are permanent residents of Cebu (i.e. Cebuanos) that aren't "really Cebuano," which is absurd. His description would moreover define Cebuano-speaking Filipinos who aren't from Cebu (such as Manny Pacquiao, among others) as Cebuanos, when experience tells us they'd rather be identified as Boholanos, Bisaya, etc.

Dorseoa's deliberately vague and inaccurate edit summaries—the all-too-familiar "improve article," "fix sentences," "NPOV," and "clean up," just to mention a few—also lead me to believe that he is a sockpuppet of $antander who, in turn, is just one of the many sockpuppets of another user. (Please see this.) The fact that their userpages are almost if not completely identical supports this. This user has long been known to target not just Cebu-related articles but articles relating to the rest of the Philippines, to Spain, to mestizaje, etc., and it won't be long before he resorts to personal attacks as he is accustomed to doing. --Pare Mo (talk) 23:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Check if Ihsaries is another Orsahnses/$antander sock. --Eaglestorm (talk) 02:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Submitted their (?) cases here. Thanks for the advice. --Pare Mo (talk) 11:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Jose Rizal

This article has been blanked by User:Moonriddengirl due to possible copyright infringement concerns. - 121.1.11.120 (talk) 14:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

User:ArnoldDumlao

Hi all. I would like to report this user because he keeps on adding hoax information here, especially on the TV5-related articles. He keeps on adding shows on the previously aired list even if the shows are still being aired, adding QTV shows (Jesus is Lord, Adyenda and Diyos at Bayan) and on the TV5 list, and he created a bunch of hoax and misleading shows, such as True Confections (TV series), a cooking show that airs on QTV but he made it into a drama series that airs on TV5. This same user also have an history in changing the You Changed My Life article from a movie into a TV series.

I have previously reported this to WP:AIV but the admins there just ignored it. Please assist. Thanks. -danngarcia (talk) 08:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Give him warnings, and if he doesnt obey, block him, at least temporarily Zobango (talk) 22:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I already given him warnings but it seems that he just ignores them. He recently removed the PROD template I placed on the True Confections (TV series) article without any reason given (The show is actually a cooking show produced by QTV, instead he claims it that it was a drama series for TV5).
I've also did some Googling and found out that he is known in the TV5 forum as a hoax creator (creating fake trailers for his "upcoming" shows in YouTube). It seems that he finds Wikipedia another place to make his wrath. Admins, kindly check this user out. Thanks. -danngarcia (talk) 17:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, another loser, ready to be kicked Sparta-style into the fifth dimension. I already reported him to AIV, waiting for a swift hammer to be imposed on him. Blake Gripling (talk) 01:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Arnold Dumb-lao? --Eaglestorm (talk) 02:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Hehe, yeah. PMDrive hammered him already. Blake Gripling (talk) 02:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure if AD really is GG (as PMDrive stated), but if it indeed is him, this is a different thrust from tinkering with any Angel Locsin stuff.--Eaglestorm (talk) 02:46, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that!, also Sarap at Home, from Q. A Cooking show turned a special? please blocked that to the admistrators. God Bless! -Gabbyshoe (talk) 12:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Sovereignty of the Philippines article

I've created a startup stub for a Sovereignty of the Philippines article, growing out of discussions at Talk:Philippine–American War#First Philippine Republic: Insurgent?. I've placed a {{WPPhilippines}} on the talk page. Feel free to edit as may be needed. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi! I recently took, using my own digicam, the picture of comic book artist, Lan Medina in a recent comic book launching/signing. Can anyone help me what specific copyright tag I should use? Please kindly check. Thanks! †Bloodpack† 17:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

By-laws freeze for WMPH

Subject to the review of the By-laws by Atty. Santiago (the lawyer we met earlier), the By-laws shall be frozen and not edited. However, there were a few points of agreement as to what changes will take place (this is incomplete):

  • Tenure will be extended to two years for the initial Board, and one year for all subsequent Boards
  • Associate membership shall be abolished. Members below 18 can now vote, but they cannot become officers.
  • A new basis for impeachment shall be added (I forgot the exact wording)
  • The sub-chapter issue shall be incorporated into the general provisions. A sub-chapter guide shall be drafted in the future subject to what is being discussed at meta:Sub-national chapters.

In addition, implementing rules and regulations as to our procedures (voting, conducting meetings, conducting online meetings, Wikiquette, etc.) shall be added to the transitory provisions. They should be drafted by the Board within ten days of ratification.

Barring any other objections, events and the like, we should get word of what will happen next week, and we should be able to finalize the By-laws within two weeks (hopefully by my 19th birthday :D) before sending it to the Chapters committee. Hopefully we can incorporate by mid-December, and hopefully as well we can begin discussions with Landbank over waiving inter-regional deposit fees as we begin the process of incorporation. --Sky Harbor (talk) 14:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

In addition, here are the other topics discussed:
  • The order of sections of the By-laws is fine and pretty standard.
  • According to the lawyer, By-laws should not be too detailed because SEC might question it.
  • The organization should not be too democratic.
  • Quarterly online meetings are allowed and a yearly convention should be offline. The venue and place of the convention should be indicated in the By-laws.
  • There should only be a President, which also acts as a Chairman. (I can't recall the details about this topic but the lawyer said that it is up to us on how we define it in the By-laws)
  • Wikimedia Pilipinas, Wikimedia Filipinas etc. should be registered as trademarks in IPO instead of corporation names.
  • Internal and external auditor.
  • Membership audit. (This wasn't discussed in the meetup but I propose to have a membership form for the participants instead of just signing-up in the list of participants.)
  • We also talked about Philippine copyright law regarding works of government as it relates to Wikipedia. The lawyer said that instead of lobbying in Congress, we should get a clarification from IPO that it is ok to use works of government here in Wikipedia since those works are in public domain.
  • We probably have two meetups in November. One meetup is for finalizing the By-laws and the other is for signing the documents. Or we can have the first meetup through chat.
By the way, I will pay the attorney's fees in advance, which is subject to reimbursement from WMPH once funds are available. The lawyer will get back to us next week. I will keep you posted regarding this matter. --Jojit (talk) 01:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I'll try checking out the IPO website just in case some of the information we need is already there. If anyone's planning to go to the IPO offices, do let me know how I can help...my office is just a minute's walk from there. --- Tito Pao (talk) 03:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Addendum: for everyone's perusal: http://www.ipophil.gov.ph/ --- Tito Pao (talk) 03:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Trademarking applies to us only if we will use the trademark. Now what will we sell, other than shirts and copies of Wikipedia? --Sky Harbor (talk) 04:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Take note that "Wikipedia" and "Wikimedia" (and their logos) are trademarks that WMF owns and that they should be the ones to register with the IPO if they need to. Our use of those trademarks will be governed by the local chapter agreement. --seav (talk) 04:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

WMPH update: The lawyer called me last night and he said that we should register with SEC first before submitting the By-laws to ChapCom for approval. He argued that there could be a scenario where SEC would require us to rewrite the By-laws even if it is already approved by the ChapCom. According to the lawyer, we might have a problem in resubmitting SEC compliant By-laws to ChapCom because ChapCom might think that we are making a fool of them. I think we should coordinate this with the ChapCom that their approval is still subject to changes by the SEC. By the way, how do we submit the By-laws to ChapCom? For all WMPH participants, please give your opinion regarding this problem. --Jojit (talk) 02:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Just so I know where/how this fits in our timetable, how long from submission does it take for the SEC to provide feedback on whether the by-laws are approved? --- Tito Pao (talk) 04:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
The ChapCom may be contacted through e-mail or IRC. I'm going to be busy these next few days (the Philippine Schools Debate Championship is up and running again), so I may not be able to contact them. But it's sure worth to try. --Sky Harbor (talk) 08:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Let's just drop a quick note to the ChapCom about this note by the lawyer. I don't think the ChapCom will be very strict with regards to the AoI and By-laws unlike the SEC. The ChapCom just need to check that the proposed org meets the criteria (non-profit, membership-based, etc.). --seav (talk) 14:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Has anyone emailed ChapCom? I’ll be emailing them tomorrow if no one emailed them. --Jojit (talk) 01:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
According to the lawyer, papers will be out from 1 to 2 weeks if we are clear with our By-laws. --Jojit (talk) 09:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I've been busy with the past few days and I'd only emailed ChapCom members today (November 11). My apologies to the group. I hope that they would reply. --Jojit (talk) 15:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

WMPH update: For everyone's information, ChapCom replied with my email and the By-laws is now being proposed for review by the ChapCom. The lawyer will review it after the ChapCom's review. All WMPH participants (or those who want to be participants) especially those who heavily contributed with the By-laws are welcome to collaborate with the ChapCom once they ask questions and say comments about the By-laws. --Jojit (talk) 15:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Giant Rat-Eeating Carnivourous Plants.... in the Philippines!

Worth an article?--Jondel (talk) 03:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Ooops. Already done->Nepenthes attenboroughii--Jondel (talk) 04:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Copyright issues with content sourced from Wikipilipinas.org - Assistance needed

Hello,

While doing routine copyvio cleanup, we stumbled upon several articles that included wholesale copy / pasting from their Wikipilipinas corresponding article. This used to be legit, as Wikipilipinas is a GFDL 1.2 site.

However, when Wikipedia moved to dual licensing on June 16th this year, this has ceased to be the case. Following this change, GFDL-only content added after November 1st, 2008, is not licensed in a way that allows us to reuse it here - see foundation:Terms of Use for the legalese, or Wikipedia:Licensing update#Content restrictions for the more readable content.

The WikiProject Copyright Cleanup is therefore asking for the assistance of all willing and able contributors here in order to identify and solve this issue. If you are willing to help, here are ways to do so:

  • Identify articles in scope of this Wikiproject that have had content pasted from their corresponding Wikipilipinas page after November 1st, 2008
  • If you can rewrite the article to a non-infringing state, please do so, you could further use the {{copyvio-histpurge}} template to identify revisions containing copyrighted content that need to be removed
  • If the article cannot be directly rewritten, list it for deletion using {{db-gfdl}}
  • In some cases, it was our article that was imported by Wikipilipinas. In these case, you can place {{Backwardscopyvio}} on the talk page to ensure we don't get false alarms later on
  • Complex cases could be listed at WP:CP by placing {{copyvio}} on the article and listing it under the current day.

We do believe that there are many articles of great encyclopedic value in the number that would benefit from this assistance, as the alternative would be deletion. We're looking forward to working with you. Best, MLauba (talk) 11:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if I can personally help with this but I presume for anyone to be able to help they will first need to know which articles are up for deletion. If there's a list please make it available here. Lambanog (talk) 00:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
First place where help is needed: La solidaridad. The previous article had to be deleted as it copied from multiple sources from its creation. I've rewritten a short stub, but this is very far from my expertise, and considering this was previously assessed as high importance to the WikiProject, I'd appreciate specialists fleshing it out. On the other matter, it was mostly a series of biographies copied over by User:Jakosalem and his socks, and these have been deleted since. I'll try and compile a list of those by tomorrow. MLauba (talk) 15:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
It's necessary to make sure all content is free

Zobango (talk) 14:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Some stuff listed for deletion

I listed some Encantadia characters and some stuff related to the show because they are of original research, fails WP:RS and does not need to be spin-out.--JL 09 q?c 12:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree on deleting them, as it is too trivial and excessive given the overall priority rating of the article. I guess it'll be better if we move all Encantadia-related content into the GMA TV Wikia, and proceed with deletion. Blake Gripling (talk) 02:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pirena

Perhaps some Philippine editors have interest in commenting on a large number of Philippine TV related articles nominated for deletion. Power.corrupts (talk) 11:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

A mass move to the GMA Wikia, like what I've said earlier, might also be of good use. This was similar to the case involving Star Wars canonical information, with some articles being moved to a more dedicated place such as Wookiepedia. Blake Gripling (talk) 12:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

AKRHO Redux

Activity on the article is on the rise for the first time since Pao cleaned it up a few weeks ago. Lately, I've been reverting the stuff back to his version because this user has been trying to rebuild it with POV stuff and adding pics about some movie the frat made starring Zoren Legaspi. The user's edit summaries has been along the lines of unnecessary deletions, while I try to explain. He has yet to air his side on improving the article. I don't know, but I suspect that guy's a sock of a certain SPA Aeon and I tangled with a few months ago. Editors, please assist. Thanks. --Eaglestorm (talk) 06:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Johnny Delgado

Hello fellow Tambays! As you may have heard by now, Johnny Delgado died this afternoon. Seeing that he still doesn't have a Wikipedia article, I created it myself in my spare time. Please feel free to improve on it and to add additional information about his work as an actor. Thanks. (And may he rest in peace....) --- Tito Pao (talk) 10:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Filipino or Philippine

Your input is needed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 November 20#Category:Filipino Animation. Cheers, postdlf (talk) 15:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

WMPH update: ChapCom has replied!

This is self-explanatory. Haha. See this. --Sky Harbor (talk) 15:43, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Please answer it. :) --Jojit (talk) 15:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Copy that. Will read the comments and answer as much as I can :) --- Tito Pao (talk) 07:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Seeking clarification re: incoming US Ambassador (?) Harry Thomas, Jr.

Seeking clarification, is Harry Thomas, Jr. the Harry K. Thomas, Jr.(article is a redirect) who has been designated as the next United States ambassador to the Philippines? The two biographies do not seem to match. I created a Harry K. Thomas, Jr. article and then noted that this article already existed. So I made it a redirect to the Harry Thomas, Jr. article. If by some chance they are not the same person, perhaps someone can undo the redirect I made to the older (no K) article? -- Alternativity (talk) 17:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Request for Efren Peñaflorida article

Peñaflorida has been named 2009 CNN Hero of the Year, perhaps there is now enough information to write about him? --112.203.118.216 (talk) 23:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I created a small article. TheCoffee (talk) 00:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Ampatuan massacre, not Maguindanao?

A move request has been filed for moving Maguindanao massacre to Ampatuan massacre(currently a redirect to "Maguindanao Massacre"), as the former refers to a vast province, while the latter refers to the specific town in which the massacre occured. Perhaps an admin can take more immediate action on this (not being an admin I don't want to do it myself), or perhaps a discussion at talk:Ampatuan Massacre would be helpful? Thanks. -- Alternativity (talk) 07:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Maguindanao massacre seems to be the common term. I'd stick with that. Zobango (talk) 19:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Google Wave and future Chat sessions

We might be using this platform in discussing documents, chat and other matters. For those who are interested in getting an invite send an email to pinoywikipedia (at) gmail (dot) com. --Exec8 (talk) 23:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Please delete Padala article.

I propose deletion of Padala, because it is unencyclopedic, non-notable and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. TheTechieGeek63 (talk) 07:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I can't believe that article's been up for over two years, and nobody bothered to truly check its notability. --Eaglestorm (talk) 07:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
It would be better if it were moved to Wiktionary

Zobango (talk) 14:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not in the Tagalog Wiktionary (see here). In its original version, the article spoke of padala as "cultural concept, a tradition and a state of mind of Filipinos leaving the Philippines to work in foreign lands." However, the article is presently an orphan, with a See also link from Balikbayan box being the only mainspace link to it. It looks to me as if the Mabuhay (expression) article should be deleted on the same grounds. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Can we move the Padala article into the Tagalog Wiktionary instead? Please? TheTechieGeek63 (talk) 05:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Probably the best solution Zobango (talk) 22:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Problem about consensus.

I understand that Philippines has been subjected into many revisions that are too POV concerned in the past. But now there are some sort of quarreling, or debate to say whether a consensus is achieved to revert the whole article into the agreed content of the past, or it deserves some revisions as what those factions wanted to say.--JL 09 q?c 12:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

This moment, Gintong Liwanag ng Araw keeps on reverting the restoration done by other editors, into his belief that a consensus has been reached, but in fact, there is none.--JL 09 q?c 13:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

PBB Housemates

Lately, somebody has been making separate articles on Tom and Princess. I don't think anyone from the current batch needs to have their own articles because there is simply not enough data to come by aside from what's being carried on the show. I have prodded their articles. Tom, in particular, was created by a "Tomcess" (portmanteau of Tom and Princess' fans who like them as a couple) fan. Editors, let's keep watch. Thanks--Eaglestorm (talk) 04:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

As long as there are news, articles written about them, I do not think their articles should be deleted. --Filipinayzd (talk) 19:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
nah, redirect. WP:BLP1E. –Howard the Duck 03:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Understood. I rechecked-Princess' article is down for the count. --Eaglestorm (talk) 05:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
As a comment to Filipinayzd, sadly, I don't think ANY PBB housemate deserves an article until they've actually gained enough mainstream popularity, at least here in the Philippines. In a couple of years, I'm willing to bet that they'd be all but forgotten. It's all Recentism. I mean, look at Encantadia: even if it was big then, everything on that's just up for merging/deletion or something similar now. :/ Also, it all seems rather crufty to me. Sang'gre Habagat (talk) 17:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree, very few people from the first five editions have their own articles, and even those need cruft monitors. --Eaglestorm (talk) 13:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Consensus needed

For those who maybe interested, as Filipino Americans fall within the scope of this project, there is currently a consensus polling taking place regarding whom should be the Filipino American male representative in the Asian American article's infobox. If you would be interested in supporting one of the two candidates see this section here. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 12:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Infobox Templates for Cities/Municipalities/Provinces need urgent replacement

Hello! Just notifying everyone that since Template:Infobox City Philippines and Template:Infobox Philippine province are being deleted, with Template:Infobox Philippine municipality up for deletion, we should urgently replace all occurrences of these templates with Template:Infobox Settlement. For uniformity and stuff. XD Sang'gre Habagat (talk) 13:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Personally what I think we need is a wrapper template that uses Infobox Settlement, so that Infobox Settlement is used uniformly on all the city/municipality articles. Infobox Settlement is very flexible, but it may be too flexible... For instance, there are several ways to use it to show the number of barangays in a town. For an example of what I have in mind, see Template:Infobox Philippine region. TheCoffee (talk) 17:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
HM, good point. ^^; I'll see how this works before trying it out. I totally need to work on my Infobox syntax skills. Sang'gre Habagat (talk) 17:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I sorta take that back. Very few other wrapper templates (that I know of, or maybe I'm not looking in the right place) "use" Infobox Settlement. Is this recommended, though? Because Infobox Settlement really does look like a lot of work just to understand. D: Sang'gre Habagat (talk) 18:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

In a related discussion, I'm planning to revive the inactive discussion on LGU naming conventions. In this hopefully "final" phase of discussion (at least for city names), action will done on what should happen:

  1. Removing the word "city" from city names unless there it needs dismabiguation, and moving it to the <cityname>, <provincename> convention for component cities, and <cityname> for independent cities. (For example, moving Calapan City to Calapan, Oriental Mindoro.
  2. Final resolution on what to do with barangays, including their naming conventions, of course following decisions made on prior AFDs.
  3. Preliminary discussion on the elimination of the province's name in the titles of municipality (and pending approval, city) articles.

–Howard the Duck 14:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC) –Howard the Duck 14:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

State of Martial Law

This is a developing story. Martial Law has been declared starting 0000H December 5. First seen on ABS-CBNNews.com. I suggest you do the opening salvo for the new wiki article. A separate article will be created as the event may expand as days goes by. --Exec8 (talk) 15:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I suggest putting it in the Maguindanao massacre page until it expands very well that it deserves a separate article. :) --JL 09 q?c 16:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it should be in the Maguindanao massacre article. Take note that the more notable event, Martial Law in the Philippines, is redirected to the article about Ferdinand Marcos instead of a separate article. --Jojit (talk) 02:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
It's just hype, a distraction. A subsection is not even needed.--124.104.35.184 (talk) 15:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Me, a sock?

Resolved
 – User:NuclearWarfare has deleted the SPI probe as bad faith work and blocked sock. --Eaglestorm (talk) 03:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I can't believe I'm being accused as a sock again for the first time since my small skirmish with the Witchy2006 IP socks over Tayong Dalawa. Now, I'm being accused as the supposed sockmaster behind the recent work on AKRHO...by another sock nonetheless! I've filed my rebuttal at the SPI page. --Eaglestorm (talk) 06:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

File undelete request

I am requesting the admin tambays to please undelete the Kalibo seal image (File:Kalibo seal.JPG) which was deleted because of an invalid license. I will replace the license with a fair use tag and add a rationale. Thanks. --Bluemask (talk) 05:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Done! TheCoffee (talk) 08:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Redirect

Can someone fix:

I'm just not good at it. --Scorpion prinz (Talk | contribs) 03:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Q on Cabales Serrada Escrima

On the wiki page about this Escrima style, it says: The word Serrada means "to close" in Spanish. Which is simply not true. "serrada" in Spanish means "serrated, ridged". The Spanish word "cerrada", on the other hand, means "closed, not public". Is there some more information available about the origin and meaning of the term "serrada escrima"?
Thanks, chk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.88.245.1 (talk) 20:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Cities

Tabaco City. This needs attention. --Scorpion prinz (Talk | contribs) 02:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Now its vacation, maybe everybody needs to do some edits after the Supreme Court declared as valid and constitutional 16 republic acts that converted 16 municipalities into cities while exempting them from a law that requires towns to have an income of P100 million yearly to vie for cityhood. Inquirer.net --Exec8 (talk) 02:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Not again. Ehh. Don't change until there's finality in the ruling: I'm betting the LCP will appeal. --Sky Harbor (talk) 07:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
In an en banc session, the high tribunal voted 6-4 to grant the second motion for reconsideration filed by the towns that lost their city status because of the court’s decision on Nov. 18, 2008, that found their “cityhood laws” unconstitutional. The Supreme Court, with a deadlocked vote of six apiece, upheld on April 28, 2009, the nullification of the 16 laws because of a common provision exempting them from the annual-income requirement as it supposedly violated the equal-protection clause.--Exec8 (talk) 10:24, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Maligayang Pasko!


         

Maligayang Pasko! Mga ka-Tambay! --JL 09 q?c 13:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not being Scrooge here but those images aren't license under GFDL. I can see the copyright symbol on Zeusbox Studio website. Those images should be deleted. --115.147.231.99 (talk) 01:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Halsema Highway

Halsema Highway is an interesting article to make. It is where the highest point in the Philippine Highway System is located. --Exec8 (talk) 13:44, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Pictures and Photos Of Philippine Presidents

It's kind of ridiculous but the referencing and sourcing of photos and pictures of Philippine presidents is extremely poor and they are consistently being tagged for deletion. There is really no excuse for this. Several pictures which are easily recognizable can probably stand on fair use grounds even if sourcing is not clear but there is absolutely no reason to be satisfied with this. Knowing when and where such photos were taken are important facts in themselves. I cannot think of a deficiency related to the Philippines on Wikipedia that is more important than this. This deserves to be among the project's highest priorities. If nothing else at least images of the Amorsolo presidential paintings should be uploaded. 1 edit. Lambanog (talk) 22:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Call for help in Mayon article

As of this writing, Gubernatoria wants to cite the Mayon talk page itself in the article. I had to remove it since it's a self-reference, but he keeps putting it back and has threatened to report me for it. Since I don't want to go into an edit war with him (Gubernatoria seems to exhibit that behavior and has breached 3RR in a half hour) I implore you for an intervention in the article. --112.203.95.233 (talk) 16:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, he violates the rule mentioned. I intervened in the edit war and warned Gubernatoria. I suggest to stop reverting as you may also be involved in edit war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JL 09 (talk • contribs) 16:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, that was needed. I want to collaborate with him but he always gets hot-headed and reverts my edits quickly, and it's not the first time he called me a vandal since I happen to edit what he edits, too.
Just this morning the alert level around the volcano is lowered from alert level 4 to alert level 3. Before that we discussed about the indiscriminately long daily log on the 2009-2010 eruption (see section in Mayon talk, and the aforementioned daily log). I've followed through on our agreement to summarize it. I'm mentioning our discussion here in case he reneges on his word and resumes reversion all over again. --112.203.95.233 (talk) 08:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Hon'gadan shaomai and Ma'Pen Flo shaomai

I am not sure whether here is the appropriate place or not. There are descriptions about above varieties in Shumai article. However it is not known whether they are hoaxes or truths. If someone knows them, please update the section with the reliable source, or the section will be removed. See Talk:Shumai#What is Hon'gadan shaomai and Ma'Pen Flo shaomai?. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 00:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The shumai article is mostly covered by the China and Hong Kong wikiprojects. As for why you can't seem to find them on an online search, the titles of these varieties are transliterated into English and may be innacurate. Either way you can ask those wikiprojects if these varieties exist and what sources are available for them. --112.203.95.233 (talk) 00:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your advice. However I removed the descriptions.[2] If anyone believes them true, Please feel free to restore them with reliable sources. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Need third opinion on deletion debate on Tagalog Wiki

Well, there is an ongoing debate about the existence of an article Richard Vincent Narag on the Tagalog Wiki. Richard Vincent Narag is a non-notable academician, Google hits nothing more other than his Wikipedia page, licensure examination sites and mirror pages of Wikipedia. But the defense goes on that he's notable in their website, which in fact, appears to be edited day by day just to counteract my objections about verifiability. References were vague, it points to the PRC, the Patent office of the Philippines, and most are self-published sources that there is no way to confirm.

The defense also says that he has been awarded some sort of Nobel Prize etc. which I can't find any basis of that. Several users has been joining the discussion, all of them has no edits except their response on my talk page. (Is this sock puppetry?) I demand at least one online news sources, as recommended by WP:Notability (academics) that may verify that he passed at least one of the criteria recommended by the said policy. Well, in my investigation, the person described by the article did not passed any of it.

I believe some of the people here would be surprised that I call for third opinion here. This lies on the fact that there are so many articles in Tagalog Wikipedia, created for vandalism, no one was able to delete them (but the list for deletion queue is very very long, most of the admins there get tired that they become inactive of cleaning the wiki, and only few people continue to maintain the wiki -- but still, there are lots of articles created by unknown IP addresses that become sort of vandalism. I believe that IP edits are more than the admins and users, and the rate of creation of useless pages with blatant vandalism is relatively higher than the rate of which vandalism pages are deleted. Tagalog wiki is very different than what it was six months ago.). It just so happened that many articles, with questionable notability status, has been written very well that many Tagalog wiki admins forgot that it fails several criteria.--JL 09 q?c 06:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Because I dragged myself into the debate, I will now leave it to the other tl.wiki admins (most likely bluemask, Jojit or AnakngAraw) to close the debate. And I wanted to close it! :P --Sky Harbor (talk) 15:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
My personal opinion is that if it can't become notable on the English Wikipedia, then it isn't notable on the Tagalog Wikipedia as well. So say to the supporters that if they can convince the English Wikipedia community to have an article on Mr. Ngarag, then the Tagalog Wikipedia can have one as well. My view is that Tagalog and the English Wikipedias are more or less the same encyclopedia, just in different languages. --seav (talk) 12:11, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Speaking of Dr. Narag's articles: his articles were the subject of AfDs here, and all of them ended up with delete verdicts. --Sky Harbor (talk) 13:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Deletion is probably nessecary Zobango (talk) 13:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Wait my dear friends it seems that you are forgot your patriotism amd love for others, English wikipedia has nothing to do with this, why not settle your debate in our version, JL stop giving false statament to our foriegn editors you are betraying your fellow Filipino Brother.Let me share sme important points.
1.JL 09 told us that Dr.Narag is a Noble Prize awardee? you are creating doom my friend,the true statement as nerissa have said, The Fil Media magazine wrote that Dr. Narag has The ""Nobel Prize Philippine Version Award"" it is very clear that JL 09 EXAGERATE it by deducting the said statement, JL what kind of a person you are ( Maninira or Talangka as they said) my fellow editors JL is giving you some false accusations and informations.
2.I personally discovered that the said person (Dr. Narag) is for real a national figure of true Filipino, an doctor, inventor etc.which base from the said evidence what ive gathered this day, a. Base from the World Intellectual Propety Office office gazzatte 2005 Dr. Narag had a lot of patents . Are we not proud of it, its hard to be an inventor, thats why he is awarded in our contry based from http://pinoytrivia.page.tl which Ive discovered personally by calling them on phone to be factaul as Most Outstading Inventor of the Philippines by Fil Media, National Biographic Research, etc and it is wriiten in the back of Dr.Richard Vincent Narag Books with verifiable ISBN.
3. JL you are demanding just one verfiable news source? some editors gave it to you JL nerissa told us that about us Fil Media Magazine which Ive discovered to be existing.how about IPO official gazzete, Fil Inventors Catalog (which they say that we must wait). Ive told you that we should give them (other editors ) time.Ive xerox some pages about IPO gazzette now how can I sent it to you? as the others editors who are asking how they can sent it to you like nerissa, ( wherein instead you answered it you ignore it, some editors wanted your help JL09 to prove their point now you are ignoring it. Why?. lets GIVE SOME EDITORS TIME TO COMPLETE THEIR ARTICLE.
4. JL 09 you are questioning the Tagalog wiki admins about what seems to you to be a failure in their part, is that because you want the Tagalog wiki admins to be same as what you are thinking and when it comes to the point that it is unknown to you it becomes unpopular and subject for deletion, you are saying about a list for deletion, JL 09 I think you should evaluate your self may be you are too young (16-18 yo)playing with ideas, JL There are a lot of great unknown Filipinos out there who are dying to serve and make our contry great. They are unknown is because we have no time to search them out, you are just sitting in your computer waiting for a news, what kind of a person you are, there are a lot of great Filipinos which are not written or mentioned in news because sometimes we ignored them ( example do you know who invented the first liquid paper? who painted the colors of F16 jet figther? Who are the Filipino Inventors and Authors? they are great filipinos but never heard in news only in IPO Gazzates and Awarding Magazines. So you have no right to question your fellow Filipino articles , they know their articles better than you , Tagalog wiki admins is better than you JL 09 because you are putting you fellow Filipinos down .
5. Zobango my friend speak no evil to anyone, its a sin (Dr.Narag not Ngarag)
6. My dear Wikipedia friends as JL 09 with some supporters want to delete the said article I disagree there are some editors want it to remain, There are a lot of Books that the said Dr. have written and he is a teacher thats why some of the students, Inventors, teachers want the article to remain because for them the said Dr. is a hero and may be they love his books.(now you called them Sockpuppets)
7. To all Filipino wikipedians as a concern citizen may I just request that let your passion be for the truth, continue talking to friends, ask imformations personally, go search them personally not just sitting there in your computer, dont let us numb you, dont let them stop you, search the truth, for only the truth will set us free. Have a merry Christmas and Happy New year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DanBrown1 (talk • contribs) 07:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey this is my article and it is based from fact why do you want to delete it.Dan Brown is right, do really want a wikipedia English source ok check en.wikiquote.org/wiki/ chack the ISBN. Dan Brown is telling the truth.

I realized that you should now delete my article. my teacher may be mad at me now.Thank you Nerissa and Dan Brown thank you for your support, the article may be deleted but the truth will live on to our hears forever.Hope someday will meet again. Ewankosainyo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ewankosainyo (talk • contribs) 10:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks DanBrown1 for the response. Well, we have a policy on Wikipedia that dubious cases like this must be verifiable (here on English Wikipedia, whenever you edit an article, you can see on the lowest portion of the editing box the statement: "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable.". In Tagalog Wikipedia, it is "Kailangang masiyasat kung tunay ang mga pang-ensiklopedyang nilalaman.") Saying that "Philippine version" is still a part of an assumed Nobel Prize, which, I guess that there is no Philippine Nobel Prize. I believe that Dr. Narag is a real person, with a real profession (nothing in particular, he is not a fictitious individual), but he doesn't, at least, the article written on Tagalog Wikipedia doesn't met any of the requirements prescribed by the notability guidelines for academic persons, per my analysis on the deletion page. As what the verifiability rule wanted to say, or at most, the reliable sources pillar of the whole Wikipedias, we must provide at least a source, moreover, an independent source so that we can prove the factual accuracy of the contents. My analysis is that you (and other IP editors), though provided source, inserted dubious information that required references. That is good, you inserted citation, but the citation itself is really really bad. You give us the Search page of the Professional Regulation Commission website, the Intellectual Property Office home page, and books written by the person on the article itself. I demand at least a single news source giving citation to Dr. Narag as the "most awarded patent-man/inventor" (per se) or, being the inventor of "ever-famous" Lifetime Calendar; but Nerissa and others gave me a book that we cannot find on the internet. Perhaps it is easy to say that "he's name is on that book!" or "my name is on that paper!" but it isn't easy to verify if his name or my name is really on a publication. For example, the "book title" given to us there was "World Intellectual Prope(r)ty Office office [Official] gazza(e)tte 2005" that mentioned Dr. Narag. I can safely say, that if he is on WIPO Gazette, then I can't find his name on the internet (believing that WIPO is an international IP office, then they must have an online version/a post dealing with them).
Even though I'm seventeen right now, I am not as immature as what you think. Yes, I believe that there are millions of unsung great Filipinos out there, but we cannot make every single article about them and their talents perhaps. I believe that if they did something best ("may napatunayan na"), then that is the great time to have a space for them here on Wikipedia. What is the use of reliable source, notability and verifiability rules, if everybody will be given a chance to have an article, even if non-notable?
Next, almost all of the editors who get involved with the deletion discussion of Biophysicopsychoemotiointellectosociosexospirito voted delete, and I strongly believe that reasons stated there may apply there.
Fourth, majority of people here involved in the discussion are Filipinos. You cannot regard non-Filipinos here as foreigners, because we are also foreign people here.
Fifth, I assume you shouldn't degrade myself as a person. It isn't rightful to post personal attacks.
Sixth, (for other readers/viewers) apology if the discussion goes too long here, this was supposed to be on the Tagalog wiki, but seems the defense, Nickrds09 and I are only the pals who are involved in the discussion there. :P
Finally, even though Google hits (or Yahoo hits) isn't much 100% reliable for notability, I inserted here relevant links to show that there is no Richard Vincent Narag (and its nomenclature clones) in internet, except on mirror sites of Wikipedia (English or Tagalog):
  • Richard Vincent Narag Google and Yahoo (less results)
  • Richard Narag Google and [3] (now has an associated name Cliff Richard Narag)
  • There is no Richard Vincent Narag on the WIPO site: see here. Only a chemical with the name "naraG 3'-Phosphat"
  • There is no Richard Vincent Narag on TOYM. see here
  • Sky Harbor, you mentioned that previous "Dr. Narag" articles were deleted. I can't verify if this page was entirely copied on the deleted English Wikipedia article, because the last time I saw it, the article is flying with {{cite web wiki mark-up, I am wondering if the Pinoytrivia.tl page is also using wiki as basic framework.
  • There is no Narag in Wikiquote, as opposed to what DanBrown1 is saying.
  • We can't verify ISBN (to quote "and it is wriiten in the back of Dr.Richard Vincent Narag Books with verifiable ISBN."): [4], [5], [6], [7] (Two books share the same ISBN, is this real?) I am not against that the person didn't wrote a book, but it's against to your say that it can be verified. (How?)
Thanks. Apology again.--JL 09 q?c 14:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


Thank you JL 09,It is very unfair for Dr. Narag who is may be innocent in this case thats why I attack you personally, Apology, Ewankosainyo claimed that he wrote the said article and he said he wanted it to be deleted, he also mentioned that his teacher will get mad of him well, What do you think why? JL 09 Im starting my new articles in engineering now hope you help me once I saved it,Just to be clear Im not the one who mentioned about wikiquotes it was Ewankosainyo who told us. May be the best way to verify the said book is to go to national library and read the said book, it will be Bias in our part to just sit here, dont worry Tomorrow I will try to go ther, another IPO gazzette not WIPO alone.DanBrown1 (talk • contribs) 07:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Entirely off-topic, but this hurts to read. :P Shrumster (talk) 12:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm... I just visited to give an early Christmas greeting but it seems that you have some issues that I could assist you with.
Check out the Law on Patents. One can be on the gazette if one has enough resources to hire a lawyer and apply for patent application. I looked over Dr. Narag's entry at the IPO and all I got was this utility model. First of all, it is a utility model, not a patent which requires an inventive step. It is also has not been issued yet. So this Dr. Narag is a patent applicant and not an inventor. Finally there is no reliable third party sources (wikimirrors and your arguments are only listed) that says that this utility model is notable. Regarding the ISBN no., no hits on Amazon as well. By the way, why are self published books are used as references in that article?. Hay, I'm able to close that discussion but I guess that defeats the point about retiring right? Anyways, Merry Christmas guys!--124.6.181.60 (talk) 10:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree with 124.6.181.60's analysis. The creator still defends the notability of the subject, which, his rationale on Tagalog WIkipedia's deletion investigation points are still unacceptable anyway.--JL 09 q?c 07:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Because of real-world things...

...well, some things could be coming our way:

  • Members of the Encantadia WikiProject will be pleased to hear that GMA will be airing a new season of Encantadia. What a nice way to revive an inactive WikiProject.
  • I'm thinking of organizing a 2010 election task force

Any ideas? --Sky Harbor (talk) 12:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The 2010 election articles have been gaining several edits lately. The Philippine House of Representatives elections, 2010 is a good start. –Howard the Duck 14:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
If only I have the time, I would love to upload congressional race results since 1946. --Scorpion prinz (Talk | contribs) 02:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Glad to return here after some days of reviewing notes for lots of exams on Monday. For the Encantadia, I recently tagged for AFD many of the article under that Wikiproject especially all of those unreferenced. Glad to see expanded articles such as Hathoria, Lireo and the like plus articles regarding Encantadia's characters (even the minor ones) written rich, the story's fictional genealogy, the history of the story and lots of stuff regarding Encantadia world. Even though they were written in length, all of them are not referenced. No reference means there is no single source at all. The debate(s) was closed with no consensus, because the community agreed to create a single article which will discuss the kingdoms, the characters and some stuff, but these kingdoms, characters and stuff were already in the main Encantadia article. In short, there is a mere duplication. My opinion is that as Encantadia the second Saga playing comes near (or at least at the time new series will be on TV), I am very certain that there will be lengthy expansion on Encantadia that may contain original research and unreferenced claims. Maybe there will be another set of articles which will deal to the characters, that again, contain original research and unreferenced claims. So, I am sure that this may happen, and I suggest cleaning them up before the large bang goes.
For the election, I am also interested on joining the task force. Recently, I cleaned or reported some of the article regarding politicians, like Vilma Santos', Manny Villar's, Mike Defensor's. I believe there are something out there that really needs attention. For example, Manny Villar article became center of political advertisement. Yeah, it really talked about his platform, his political agendas and were added by a user bearing the name of Villar.--JL 09 q?c 15:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

What does 1st class even mean?

It says on the main page of Bocaue that "Bocaue is a 1st-class urban municipality in the province of Bulacan, Philippines."

1st class in terms of what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flipcritic (talk • contribs) 11:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

In terms of income classification. 1st-class means it has an average annual income over three years of over fifty million pesos or more. See here --112.203.95.233 (talk) 13:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
It is a tacky description regardless. Lambanog (talk) 18:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I suggest the removal of such classes from the introductory paragraph of all Philippine LGUs. Perhaps we can accomodate such claffication in the Economy section of Finance section of the LGU infobox.--Scorpion prinz (Talk | contribs) 21:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Just because you think it's tacky, Lambanog, doesn't mean it's insignificant. Obviously, it's Philippine Law that classifies municipalities, which suggests that these classifications be documented on each municipality's page. Sang'gre Habagat (talk) 02:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I know it's tacky, but having lived in Laguna and La Union and observed different levels of government in both provinces, I can say with some confidence that the descriptor is an important one. Once you say it's a first class municipality, you know what to expect, down to Traffic conditions, availability of certain goods, and so on. The same is true to some degree with Fourth and Fifth class municipalities, and to a lesser degree Second and Third class. I would suggest making the descriptor clearer by expanding it into a sentence... something along the lines of... "Based on the Philippine Government's categorization of municipalities by income classification, Agoo is considered a First Class Municipality." - Alternativity (talk) 18:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I suppose supplying the info in the city/municipal infobox should suffice, we could perhaps add an Economy section to it. --Scorpion prinz (Talk | contribs) 20:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
I have to agree with Alternativity that the classes for municipalities and cities are rather important descriptors. Also, the infoboxes for municipalities/cities already have the classification noted (for municipalities/cities that even use the infobox). I have to also agree with Alternativity with making the descriptor clearer, but instead of her suggestion of turning it into a sentence, how about linking "1st class" or similar to Philippine municipalities#Income classification? Sang'gre Habagat (talk) 02:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Sarah Geronimo

User:Rars07 is doing some good-faith yet wrongfully executed edits on the article, showering it winth peacock, fail and POV. Can someone help me clean up this mess? Blake Gripling (talk) 05:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

WMPH updates

Sorry guys, but because of the slow pace of the by-laws review, we were unable to get everything done by December 22. However, hopefully we can address all by-laws concerns before we send the by-laws to the WMF Board.

In the spirit of Christmas, let's get together and get this done! WMPH in the New Year! :D --Sky Harbor (talk) 14:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I went to SEC last December 23 to extend the registration of the corporation name, Wikimedia Philippines Inc. I was able to pay the documentation stamps but SEC’s iRegister became offline just after I paid the stamps. So, I went back yesterday and successfully extended the registration our name, which is reserve up to March 28, 2010. Please give your time to answer questions in the By-laws talk page. Seav, I'm not seeing you answering some of the questions. ;) Everyone is encourage to answer those questions. I hope that the By-laws review by the ChapCom will finish by mid-January 2010 so we can proceed with the other steps on becoming a chapter. --Jojit (talk) 08:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
I thought you guys had the questions covered. I was actually answering the questions posed by the Chapcom regarding the Articles of Incorporation, which they also reviewed. --seav (talk) 02:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Here is the link. If the review nears completion we might call for a new meetup. --Exec8 (talk) 12:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
It's 2010 new CTCs will be required. --Scorpion prinz (Talk | contribs) 04:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

CFD of possible interest

The CFD here may be of interest to participants in this Wikiproject. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Philippine Geographic Center

What is the geographic center of the Philippines? If it is water, what sea? what is the closest municipality? Northernmost municipality? Southernmost municipality? Westernmost municipality (in case exclusion of Kalayaan Islands)? Easternmost municipality? --Exec8 (talk) 02:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

AFAIK, Marinduque is the geographic center of the Philippines. I just forgot where in Marinduque. --Jojit (talk) 02:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
The answer to the question, as is often the case, is more complicated than the question itself. First, what is "The Philippines"? One possible answer is contained in Article III of the Treaty of Paris.

Spain cedes to the United States the archipelago known as the Philippine Islands, and comprehending the islands lying within the following line: A line running from west to east along or near the twentieth parallel of north latitude, and through the middle of the navigable channel of Bachi, from the one hundred and eighteenth (118th) to the one hundred and twenty-seventh (127th) degree meridian of longitude east of Greenwich, thence along the one hundred and twenty seventh (127th) degree meridian of longitude east of Greenwich to the parallel of four degrees and forty five minutes (4 [degree symbol] 45']) north latitude, thence along the parallel of four degrees and forty five minutes (4 [degree symbol] 45') north latitude to its intersection with the meridian of longitude one hundred and nineteen degrees and thirty five minutes (119 [degree symbol] 35') east of Greenwich, thence along the meridian of longitude one hundred and nineteen degrees and thirty five minutes (119 [degree symbol] 35') east of Greenwich to the parallel of latitude seven degrees and forty minutes (7 [degree symbol] 40') north, thence along the parallel of latitude of seven degrees and forty minutes (7 [degree symbol] 40') north to its intersection with the one hundred and sixteenth (116th) degree meridian of longitude east of Greenwich, thence by a direct line to the intersection of the tenth (10th) degree parallel of north latitude with the one hundred and eighteenth (118th) degree meridian of longitude east of Greenwich, and thence along the one hundred and eighteenth (118th) degree meridian of longitude east of Greenwich to the point of beginning.

That sketches out a bit of an irregular polygon. Given such a figure, where is the center? One possible answer to that question is that it is the center of a box enclosing the polygon. Such a box would have corners at 116 E 20 N, 127 E 20 N, 127 E 4.75 N, 116 E 4.75 N. The center of this box would lie at 121.5 E,12.375 N. That point lies roughly in the center of the Tablas Strait between the islands of Tablas and Mindoro. I've mapped this location in Google maps—see it here.
The CIA Factbook locates the Philippines at 13 00 N, 122 00 E. I think I remember finding this point myself once by fitting the Philippine islands as shown on a map into a box and finding the center of that box.
Incidentally, having gone through the foregoing exercise, I will probably be editing Geography of the Philippines#Geographic Center. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
You should also include in Geography of the Philippines#Geographic Center about Marinduque. The Marinduque government stated that NAMRIA supports their province as the geographic center of the Philippines. (See this and this) --Jojit (talk) 07:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
There's also Extreme points of the Philippines. –Howard the Duck 05:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
To answer Jojit's question: the geographical center of the Philippines is in Mogpog, Marinduque. --Sky Harbor (talk) 06:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Is that so? Coz I once attempted to fold a Philippine map into quarters, with extreme points at its edges, it should be in Romblon.--Scorpion prinz (Talk | contribs) 02:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
By that criterion, the National Book Store (the publisher of the "Map of the Republic of the Philippines" on the wall by my desk) places the geographic center about 10km west of Pandan Point -- the extreme western tip of the peninsula at the northwest extreme of Panay island. I've seen it asserted (though a bit of googling fails to turn it up) that after MacArthur's return during WW-II some U.S. General or other established an emergency landing field location by placing his finger in what looked to him like the center of the Philippines in a map he had handy -- hence Caticlan airport. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Lets use the longitude of Mavudis, Batanes and (Saluag, Tawi-Tawi ?) and the latitude of the westernmost reef in the Kalayaan Group of Islands and Pusan Point, Caraga, Davao Oriental. Another thing... where is the lowest surface point in the Philippines? (as in livable) -- is it in Malabon? --Exec8 (talk) 20:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
[[[Sitangkai, Tawi-tawi]] , not Salaug.--124.104.45.106 (talk) 10:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
These should be factored in Extreme points of the Philippines when computing for the geographic center; but of course we have to recongize the westernmost point should be an island in the Spratlys that we have actual control over. --Scorpion prinz (Talk | contribs) 04:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
The National Bookstore map has Batanes in an inset so the center will be more northern than Panay. --seav (talk) 16:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I think the center is on the Sibuyan Sea somewhere near Romblon.--124.104.45.106 (talk) 10:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
However, see Wikipedia's verifiability policy: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." Discussions here have led to recent cite-supported changes to Geography of the Philippines#Geographic Center. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

As per RA 9522 or the Archipelagic Baselines of the Philippines Law, our extreme geographic points should be:

Direction Location Coordinates
Latitude (N) Longitude (E)
North Amianan Island, Bgy. Santa Rosa, Itbayat, Batanes 21º7’18.41" 121º56’48.79"
East Pusan Point, Bgy. Santiago, Caraga, Davao Oriental 7º17’19.80" 126º36’18.26"
South Frances Reef, Bgy. Imam Sapie, Sitangkai, Tawi-Tawi 4º24’53.84" 119º14’50.71"
West Thitu Island, Bgy. Pag-Asa, Kalayaan, Palawan 11°3’10.19" 114°16’54.66"

--Scorpion prinz (Talk | contribs) 04:31, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems that Thitu island is the westernmost of all the Spratly features that we exercise actual sovereignty, hence I used it as basis for the westernmost point. --Scorpion prinz (Talk | contribs) 04:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
I've added an alternative geographic centerpoint using that information that information at Geography of the Philippines#Geographic Center. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Nota bene: The westernmost point provided in the table is the westernmost point of Thitu island itself. But if the runaway on the island will be included, its west end has the following coordinates: 11°3’3.82" N, 114°16’40.73" E --Scorpion prinz (Talk | contribs) 23:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Using the coordinates in the table provided, the geographic center is: 12°46’6.1278"N, 120°26’36.459"E, which is in the Mindoro Strait, about 12.0 kms N-NE of Apo Island in the Apo Reef which is part of Bgy. Sta Lucia, Sablayan, Occidental Mindoro; well within 15 km municipal waters of Sablayan. --Scorpion prinz (Talk | contribs) 02:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
If we were to base on the enclosed Baselines alone which will make the Balabac Great Reef the westernmost point, the center would be 12°46’6.1278"N, 121°44’47.4504"E which will be 14.3 kms, SSE of Maestro de Ocampo Island, Concepcion, Romblon. --Scorpion prinz (Talk | contribs) 03:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure that I understand the intent of that, but if the intent is that source-supportable assertions conflicting with this be excluded, that strikes me as contrary to WP:DUE. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Because there is no definite boundary on our western frontier with regard to the Kalayaan Group of Islands as other countries occupy other features in the area enclosed by PD 1596. What is only definite is the area enclosed in the baseline. Hence the point of reference would differ depending how we would actually define it. --Scorpion prinz (Talk | contribs) 00:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Re definite boundaries, I note that RA9522 says, "The baselines of the Philippines archipelago are hereby defined and described specifically as follows: ...". What I was wondering, though, was who "we" are, how this relates toarticle ownership, and whether this contemplates excluding something like, "The CIA Factbook locates the Philippines at 13°N 12°E.", citing this. If so, it strikes me as contrary to WP:DUE. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't really mean that if its the CIA Factbook, its the most updated resource. It's a US Government website, and the US Government doesn't recognize any country's sovereignty over islands in the Spratlys[8]. If we were to analyze the arguments in the drafting of the baselines law, the main reason the Spratlys were not enclosed, is the fact that other claimant countries actually exercise sovereignty over some of the features in the disputed area, to this effect our westernmost point may actually change should we occupy another feature in the island group as defined by PD1596 that may be west of Thitu island. The Baselines law just declared the Spratlys to be island regimes, where which each of a feature we control determines its own territorial sea. --Scorpion prinz (Talk | contribs) 05:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you missed my point. The lead sentence of wikipedia's verifibility policy says, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true."—It matters not what individual WP editors think about the merits of any particular pronouncement made by a source considered to be reliable for the topic at hand. WP:DUE says, "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." I haven't made the arguments, but arguments could be made that unsourced assertions re the location of the geographic center of the Philippines are original research, and should be removed, and that assertions re the geographic extent of the Philippines for geographic purposes which combine material from multiple sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources are improper synthesis and should be removed. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree with the points you've raised. At this point however if we were to cite that published information from the CIA Fact Book, it may then be inaccurate. --Scorpion prinz (Talk | contribs) 02:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Again, please refer to the lead sentence of WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." When a Wikipedia article says "X", readers who are aware of our editorial policies should interpret it as asserting, in effect, "at least one reliable source supports the assertion 'X'". Iif "X" is likely to be challenged or is a direct quote, readers can expect a supporting source to be cited. "X" may or may not be accurate, but the assertion that at least one reliable source supports it should be verifiable. If that assertion is challenged and cannot be verified, the assertion should be removed. (anyone should be able to check, but it is understood that access to some sources may be difficult or inconvenient) Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Arnis as national sport.

It's been recently announced that Arnis has been declared a national sport through the signing of Republic Act. No. 9850. We know before this that Sipa was regarded as the Philippines' national sport (unofficially, according to the National symbols template here). Since I'm not directly involved in the sport (it was taught to us back in high school, but I don't practice it). I want second opinions on this before articles related to arnis (especially escrima) will be edited to reflect this development. Thanks. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 10:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Can't we have multiple national sports? --112.203.95.233 (talk) 10:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I personally believe that this is notable enough to be mentioned. In the US, the various states often come up with a sort of declaration proclaiming a certain animal or food or whatnot as having symbolic mportance to the state, and thus proclaiming it "the state(insert object here). These declarations are notable enough to warrant mention and even an article on Wikipedia, see Lists of U.S. state insignia, so a declaration like this is definetly worth mentioning on Wikipedia

Zobango (talk) 16:06, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the Philippine national symbols template should be modified as well to reflect arnis's new status. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 13:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
I have added Arnis to the Philippine symbols template under official since it's promulgated by law. I did retain Sipa though. Thoughts? - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 20:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, the news really didn't say anything about Sipa being demoted or something, so that seems good. :) Sang'gre Habagat (talk) 02:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
This should be clarified: arnis is the national martial art, not the national sport. --Sky Harbor (talk) 17:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Check this out:

The person who was arguing with me in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel S. Razón is probably hell-bent on removing ADD-related stuff. Check out this. I need a third opinion. –Howard the Duck 02:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

In the related Eli Soriano article there may be some BLP issues, particularly on him being an "international fugitive." The link to the supposed Interpol notice is a dead link, and the World News article about him being sought after by the Interpol is from a local tabloid writer.
Also of note, in the Razon article Shannon Rose slapped a first-time anonymous editor with a level 3 vandalism warning [9][10], relating to the line about Eli Soriano's purported fugitive status. --112.203.97.53 (talk) 04:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, wow. That Shannon Rose guy should get a life... he's priming for a 2nd AfD. SPA much? --112.203.97.53 (talk) 02:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Status of ChapCom By-laws review for WMPH

For everyone's information, ChapCom posted remaining issues on WMPH By-laws as of today. See this link. I'll be answering some of the concerns but everyone is encouraged to participate in the discussion since Wikimedia Philippines is for the community. --Jojit (talk) 02:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Democraticsystem

Hello. I don't know why but Democraticsystem created a separate article about Gloria Arroyo and her presidency. Consensus still fits, eh?--JL 09 q?c 14:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

We can have both articles. We do that for Bush and Obama. I'd imagine PGMA's article is long already and an article about her presidency will be just as long. (Note: I'm having a hands-off policy for politician-related articles except for some minor edits here and there.) –Howard the Duck 14:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

An article like that is perfectly fine in my opinion Zobango (talk) 00:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Diacritics

Hello! I found lots of diacritics into many Tagalog-language (at least related) articles here in Wikipedia like the language, grammar and loanwords list to name a few. I am thinking to remove the diacritic, but I need your help. Tagalog, or at most, Filipino language and dialects (how about Chavacano de Zamboanga? I don't know if it still uses diacritics) are not written with diacritics. It is hardly to find any Tagalog or Filipino textbook fond of that accents and symbols, especially that only 1960s books have that. I suggest massive cleaning up of removing these diacritics, as it does not follow proper orthography in the Philippines. (Who inserted them anyway?) Thanks.--JL 09 q?c 14:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

In places where pronunciation is the context these should be kept. Filipino textbooks mention four diacritics that are used for pronouncing words. –Howard the Duck 14:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
If Tagalog Wikipedia is following the Filipino orthography and grammar, it should drop the diacritics. We use diacritics in Bikol Wikipedia. --Filipinayzd (talk) 15:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
From what I can see, though Wikipedia is not designed to serve as a standardizer for language policy, it has done actions leading to that effect with certain languages. The Nahuatl, Latin and Quechua Wikipedias are considered self-regulatory in the absence of a language regulator. In the case of the Philippine Wikipedias, the KWF recommendations, at least for tl.wiki, are not completely enforced, and this is evidenced by existing language policies which are in effect there. The individual Philippine Wikipedias are free to impose their own orthographical guidelines as recommended by their respective language academies, or in the absence of one, are encouraged to standardize for the sake of uniformity (this avoids the brouhaha we had with the Belarusian Wikipedia, for example). So far, the only Wikipedias to adopt comprehensive orthographical guidelines are tl, ceb, ilo and bcl (though for some reason the document is not available locally). In the case of Tagalog, though diacritics are not used in common parlance, they can prove to be very useful. --Sky Harbor (talk) 11:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
If anyone has an elementary book, those diacritics can be seen in a chapter concerning pronunciation. I forgot what they were but I am sure that they are of four types. For example, one type will tell you how to speak "baka" as in the animals that moos, while another tells you how to say "baka" as in "maybe." After that the diacritics never appear again on the book. So, in that section and in that section alone, the diacritics are useful. –Howard the Duck 11:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Actually, not just in elementary grade textbooks...it should also be found in high school and college textbooks as well. I remember seeing the four diacritics as well (such as maragsa, malamya and impit, if I'm not mistaken) even in my retorika ("rhetoric", but more like grammar) class in college. --- Tito Pao (talk) 02:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Verification of additional barangay in Article Maragondon, Cavite.

please verify the information on the existence of Barangay Garita C & D. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecks347 (talk • contribs) 15:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

It was incorrect. I have removed them and one other barangay based on this source. Magalhães (talk) 16:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Filipino defamation

Er, guys, I know this is out of topic, but can anything be done about the encyclopediadramatica wiki page "Philippines"? (Can't link you, it's on the wikipedia blacklist.) This one's would be a tough nut to crack, but if there's a solution to be found at all, we're probably among the better informed about it. -- Alternativity (talk) 05:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

This explains why some people condemn Dramatica, with at least a few calling for a site shutdown; I find some of the articles and images funny, but there are some that are borderline stupid and cruel. Blake Gripling (talk) 08:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Huh, I also saw that posted on the TEN The Evening News facebook page [11]. Anyway, it's pointless trying to shut it down. For one, it's free speech and it's hosted on another country. And another, knowing anon, if they find out that we're complaining about their stuff they'll probably provoke us so that there will be more violent reactions from other Filipinos to the point that there will be news articles about their page. So instead of just us knowing about ED, now the whole freakin' archipelago gets to read that article. --112.203.97.53 (talk) 04:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Just leave it alone. It will get closed due to lack of funds (check the Main Page). Starczamora (talk) 12:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Lol, it's actually freaking funny and much closer to reality than you'd be willing to admit - which is probably why pinoys are engraged. I do hope they get to stick around. Shrumster (talk) 13:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

You guys thought that was bad? Have any of you seen Uncyclopedia about the Philippines?
The Uncyclopedia article on the Philippines is funny and satirical. The one on the Philippine Empire even more so. As to the ED article on the Philippines, I can't really say much. The point is this: we should stop making mountains out of molehills. What's next? The Philippines will do a Malaysia and warn users to be careful when visiting ED? --Sky Harbor (talk) 00:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
How can we do anything about it? We're not their site. When it comes to an equal-opportunity offender, like ED, let bygones be bygones

Zobango (talk) 16:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Cathy Remperas

Shades of Tom and Princess...I slapped a prod tag on this. If you can delete this piece of fantard worship, all the better. Thanks --Eaglestorm (talk) 07:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Had it CSD'd; dunno if that will do the trick, but who knows? Blake Gripling (talk) 00:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Manila 6

Is February 6 good for Manila 6? I am thinking of SM North EDSA Annex Tech Lounge since it has good wifi connection. --Exec8 (talk) 14:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

If it is on February 6, I won't be able to go as I will be in Marinduque for my grandmother's birthday. --Sky Harbor (talk) 00:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
6 may be good for me, in case it pushes through on that day. 7, I'll be out of town. In case it'll be on the 13th...well, it'll be near Valentine's Day, so expect a good number of shoppers then, even more on the 14th :P At any rate, let's see how it works out, we have roughly two weeks left before February comes. --- Tito Pao (talk) 01:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Feb 20 kaya? Jojit renewed the reservation of the org name till March. So we need to get a perfect date. --Exec8 (talk) 14:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
If I'm not available on Feb 6, sure as hell hindi rin sa (not even on) Feb 20. Special day, man. --Eaglestorm (talk) 14:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Your birthday? :P hehehe --- Tito Pao (talk) 01:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I suggest that we schedule an online chat on the evening of January 30, which we can have more participants. Top of the agenda would be finalizing the By-laws. We can have Manila 6 on a later date. --Jojit (talk) 05:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I'll make time for this. :-) --seav (talk) 16:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Well that will do. --Exec8 (talk) 03:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

PhilWiki Chat 12

The new approach is very simple. Visit http://pinoywikipedia.ning.com and register/ login. Session starts at 8:00 PM on Saturday, January 30, 2010. For those who have Google Wave @ pinoywikipedia@gmail.com, you need to be online too since we will collaborate to fix our Charter. --Exec8 (talk) 03:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Effeietsanders of ChapCom may attend this meeting if his schedule permits it. I hope that many will be present on this online chat especially those key persons on the By-laws. Please confirm your attendance here so that if we are many, I can tell Effeietsanders that he can attend. --Jojit (talk) 03:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
The chat session will proceed as scheduled (8:00 PM). If you prefer to use your aliases on chat, you may do so. --Exec8 (talk) 05:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The chat was very, very productive. We managed to hammer out the remaining issues posted by the ChapCom rep. Check out the updated Bylaws for the result. Also, while ning was more stable than YM, it doesn't have archiving features. --seav (talk) 05:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Just fixed the chatroom. This time, archiving is now forever starting next chat. You have to register in the lower box instead of ning itself. --Exec8 (talk) 08:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

User talk:121.54.100.146

You guys should really block this guy indefinitely. He has been doing this over and over again for a year. He will never get the message. He has been block for like the millionth time but he still keeps doing it. By the way, here's his recent vandalism on the Tanging Yaman page. And not just that, all his previous edits are all vandalisms. And he just made a very disrespectful] edit in Gloria Romero's page saying she passed away. And by the looks of it, he seems to be kindly editing GMA pages, while vandalizing ABS-CBN pages. Please block him. --CocaCirca2009 (talk) 23:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

PLEASE

Blocked for six months. Prolog (talk) 20:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Legislative districts

I came across the Legislative district of Imus, Legislative district of Bacoor, this is supposed to be Cavite's 3rd and 2nd districts, respectively come the 2010 elections. Do they merit to have their own articles? After all only provinces and cities, and Metro Manila LGUs are granted their own districts. Should it just be reverted/merged back to Cavite's legislative districts? --Scorpion prinz (Talk | contribs) 03:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Merge both back, leave Dasma alone. –Howard the Duck 06:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

GA Reassessment of Philippine Tarsier

Philippine Tarsier has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

User:JyrusTheGreat

Hi! I would like to seek assistance from this portal since this guy is insisting that our country uses PAL standard in TV broadcasts, which is not true. I gave him historical facts and proof that we are using NTSC but he it seems that he is not bulging. Our discussion thread is on my user talk page. Kindly assist. Thanks. -WayKurat (talk) 22:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

You're doing nothing wrong, and he's truly an insistent nut with his questioning about bringing TV to the Philippines. --Eaglestorm (talk) 04:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

See you at Clark

Lets supply photos for the Philippine International Hot Air Balloon Fiesta article. The 2010 Hot Air Balloon fiesta in Clark is scheduled February 11-14, 2010. --Exec8 (talk) 19:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I found one in Flickr which are GDFL acceptable images, I've already attached it to the article. --TitanOne (talk) 19:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately it wasn't and it has been removed Magalhães (talk) 07:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
That was wierd, when I used advanced search on Flickr, I ticked on the item "Only those with free media rights". DidI do something wrong? --TitanOne (talk) 22:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
For those who have DSLRs see you this coming Friday-Sunday and take some shots! --Exec8 (talk) 09:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Inserting irrelevant character images

User:Djramos0921 is starting to get in my nerves. He keeps inserting unimportant and seriously irrelevant images on certain pages. Specially on the Agua Bendita page. Here are some of the images he has uploaded and apparently, keeps putting on the page. Notice that he actually claims that he is the copyright holder of the images as seen on the images' copyright claim.


Please do something about this before it gets out of hand. He doesn't seem to get all my warnings and he's starting on trying to own the page as shown on the hidden message he left on the page saying "WAG BAGUHIN ANG PAGE KO!!!. (Do not change my page!!!) link--CocaCirca2009 (talk) 03:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Tambayan_Philippines/Archive_24&oldid=1232534583"