Done. I also did the same thing to 1987 and 1973. Was that ok? Also, take note of his move logs. Is there anything else you need done? On another, I had some doubts about whether there should be a comma. It doesn't look right. Any ideas? --Chris S.23:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I think the comma should present after the "election/plebiscite" word, followed by the year. As for the other things, I dunno since I got confused since s/he moved a lot of pages I can't recount their original names. --HowardtheDuck04:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Hrmmmm.. At first thought, I thought that these should've been merged with the general election, but general elections weren't held on those years. One option would be to rename them into local elections. Another would be to split them into gubernatorial & mayoral elections. Hmm, maybe provincial? But, anyway, I don't live in the Philippines so I don't have the slightest idea about the political system there, so I'll defer to you guys. --Chris S.08:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
ALERT: AfD of Philippine Presidential lists goes wild!
There has been a very wild AfDs of Philippine Presidential lists going on! I am asking all Filipino Wikipedians to help defend our articles. If ever I was wrong in creating these articles, then let's merge these or just completely delete these articles. But I think its biased with American Presidential lists articles! The United States Presidential trivia was kept after an AfD was imposed on it. (But now, it was nominated for AfD again, thanks to Jerry lavoie!).
If ever these articles are deleted, let's see if American Presidential lists and Canadian PM lists articles are too alike with ours.
By the way, here's the lists of Philippine Presidential lists that are up for deletion:
And keep an eye on these articles (which are similarly identical with the RP Lists) if it doesn't gets deleted just like the Philippine presidential lists articles:
Actually, some these are quite trivial (in other words, cruft) and for me, there wouldn't be a problem if they'd get deleted. If you want other lists to be deleted, nominate them for deletion too. --HowardtheDuck05:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks HowardtheDuck for your involvement in this forum. Actually, I wouldn't prefer to put AfD on my own with other similar articles because they may blame me of counter-attack. I'll just recommend it to others just like what Jerry lavoie did. -- Kevin Ray06:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
You can copy and paste their arguments but instead of Philippines, replace it with U.S. That'll clear Wikipedia of trivial lists. I'm actually want all of these (RP, US and other countries) to be deleted --HowardtheDuck06:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Howard. Some of the articles created were so trivial to be considered as encyclopedia articles. However, much effort was exerted that it would be in vain to lose all those information however trivial they may be. Don't we have a portal or project on the Philippine Presidency of sorts? Well, merge those trivial information on that project as early as now and just go on with the deletion of those trivial articles. I wouldn't wonder if some of the articles on the Vice-Presidency will be up for deletion as well. I remember I created the list of vice-presidents of the Philippines by length of office. Hope that isn't trivial. --Weekeejames06:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I thought only the presidential trivia one is worth keeping. I know how people feel about trivia here, but I think there's a place for them here. --Chris S.08:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I am really furious when I saw the term "SEARCH AND DESTROY" by those who nominated to delete some of the lists. Well, when I saw the US Presl lists, maybe we can just merge some of the articles, but I am still offended bout the term. F@$k! Really, I am really mad! That was really unethical to tell that kind of tactics. But I appeal to all Filipino Wikipedians not to be pushed like that! Lecheng yong mga yon! Sorry about the language but I am really pissed. All the efforts we did to compile the lists will just be destroyed by mere useless consensus. --Glenncando04:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Isa ako dun sa mga nag-support sa Search and Destroy. I think the nomination was done in good faith THEN, since the category is really cluttered. Pasensya at hindi ko sinsersyoso yung AFD pero talagang redundant yung mga ninominate na articles eh (me zodiac sign pa). Pero iba doon sa trivias, nakaka-amoy ako ng double-standard doon lalo na nung nakita yung AFD for the US version. Our version has nice citations while the US version has a lot of holes yet that was kept and ours is on the Delete side. I think the Search and Destroy tactic is neutral since it is against redundant articles for all nationalities. Nauna lang tayo. Pero i-monitor natin yung mga nominators if they would live up to their goals of ridding wikipedia of listcruft. Pag hinde, saka natin banatan pero wag ngayon. Cool munaLenticel04:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
While the trivia one has more weight (not enough though, see WP:TRIVIA) than the others (and should probably be merged in with their respective president's articles), the other lists are quite ridiculous and listcruft. We have to remember, not everything useful or interesting belongs in an encyclopedia. Kevin, as most of the lists are already doomed, I suggest opening a Philippine Presidents fansite on a free web provider like geocities. Some of the lists can be interesting, but in the end, plainly unencyclopedic. If it were up to me, encyclopedic lists of presidents should be in order of date of service, period. Shrumster12:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Just so that you guys would know: I have added a level three NPA warning on User_talk:searcher007's talk page for his behavior in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Super Twins nom page. I've seen him behave like this on other pages---in particular, the WP:AFD page on the now-deleted Kristine Bernal article; accordingly, I posted a user warning on his page because he did this to other editors before, so I decided back then that he needs something stronger than a first-level warning. This time around, I'm doing it again (with a stronger warning), because it seems he has this habit of treating good-faith edits and AfD nominations as slights on his personality and on his ability as an editor.
--- Tito Pao06:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
...has received level-four warnings for repeatedly removing AfD notices. Just so that the Tambayan community will know: because of this, I have reported him to WP:ANI. --- Tito Pao16:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
We should keep watch after his block expires. According to his talk page history, he's been very uncooperative regarding WP policies, especially his uploading of copyrighted pics copied straight from online sources. Shrumster12:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
From what I can gather in the talk pages, he was blocked on January 26, 2007, at 20:58 UTC. His/her last edit, interestingly, was on January 26, at 20:44 UTC (or January 27, at about 4:44 local time, since I can see all logs using Manila time). It appears that after the 24-hour block, wowowee13 thought that he was banned on Wikipedia for good and either decided not to come back, or to post more pictures under a different user name. Let's see what comes up in relation to this user. --- Tito Pao12:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I think I speedy-nuked some of his pics (and articles) for copyright infringement as well. I'll keep an eye on his uploads too. Sigh...it seems like being the white blood cells of wikipedia is a full-time hobby. Lol. Shrumster12:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Seems like some of the pics are still up pa pala. I guess the admins have a significant backlog. Oh well, at least he's stopped uploading for a while. Shrumster12:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Heheheh...happily, no one started calling us verdugos. Oh, maybe I should call myself one? ;) As for his/her not uploading more pics, that remains to be seen.... --- Tito Pao12:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
(reset indent) The block expired, and the AfDs were deleted again! I reverted back the edits again and re-filed another report at WP:ANI. An administrator said that he will monitor this user for any similar changes. --- Tito Pao21:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Ancient Love
Guys I saw this on PDI but since their servers are down, I give this site instead.
I think its really sweet, especially in this valentine season. Buti pa yung Stone Age person may ka-date, ako 'di ko nga matanong yung ... ---- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lenticel (talk • contribs) 05:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC).
How sweet! Well, they say that college is the best hunting or fishing (? - biology inclined yata!) ground for a husband or wife. So, while in college, mag hunting o fishing na! LoL! --Ate Pinay (talk•email) 16:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Frankly, well, I think it's dumb (not of the Wikimedia decision, but of the RP government). It's like the RP government is trying to have it both ways. It's either in the public domain or it's copyrighted. Pick one and be done with it! Di ba?? Parang hindi nakalagay sa public domain kung may mga restriction. I guess that's a legal argument that's out of Tambayan's scope, but I just wanted to give my feeling. --Chris S.05:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
We might as well add fair use rationales, etc. As for the non-logos, I think someone can roam around, take pics then he'd be hold upped when a snatcher sees his digital camera. --HowardtheDuck06:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Howard, that last sentence is meant to be funny right? I am not very familiar with Manila, but I know those kinds of things - being hold up in broad daylight for a camera or celfon, happen a whole lot, based on personal experience, in Cebu, and now to some lesser extent, very sadly, in Bohol. huhuhuhu --Ate Pinay (talk•email) 16:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
In line with this, I was just told that WE ALL SUFFER FROM THE STUPIDITY OF OTHERS (in gov't!)...Anyway, User:Bolanon is meeting with the lawyers at IPO and will bring this issue to their attention for their possible input. He will also give us a list of the lawyers in said office. We will know from him how we should proceed. If we need Congress intervention, I know of 2 congressman who can help us. But with the sessions over, we need to lobby for more support. We need to do a lot of working together during this moratorium of two weeks to at least do something to save the images...--Ate Pinay (talk•email) 09:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
What I don't get is why Section 176 of the IPCP exists in the first place. It is the direct text of Section 9 of Presidential Decree No. 49, of which the entire decree was repealed by the IPCP. It makes no sense at all. The government can't have it both ways, but the ones who wrote it during Erap's time was probably trying to have it both ways. Or our congressmen (and possibly Marcos himself, who wrote the decree that started all this hullaballoo) have no idea on how copyright works. --Sky Harbor22:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
That is because everything (whether a person or an organization) that produces intellectual property produces something that is covered under the scope of intellectual property laws, whether in the Philippines or abroad. This includes the government since understandably it will create potentially copyrightable works; the section exists to define the copyright status of works made by the government. Looking at WP:COPY, we can see examples of other countries which explicitly defines the copyright status of works by the government (for example, works by the British government are copyrightable if created within 50 years from the current year.) I have no problems with the section existing per se, but the problem was with how the wording of the law made it difficult for us to easily include works by the government here on WP. --- Tito Pao23:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
So one of the things that I am wondering about is the scope of the copyright law. Since the beginning of the 20th century, there have been a handful of constitutions with the current one having been ratified in 1987. Does anyone know if the current copyright law applies to works made by the government before 1987? The answer may or may not give us 29 years of material (1957 or 1985). --Chris S.01:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
This document on RA 8293 shows it was approved as RA or as law on June 6, 1997, but its effectivity date is January 1, 1998. Read further to find the answer to your question. --Ate Pinay (talk•email) 06:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Tol, puede ba mag usap tayo live? mahina na rin ang mata ko! LoL! mailed na pala ang Panaghoy this week. Lemme know when u get it ha? --Ate Pinay (talk•email) 07:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
They may be, but then again, they (could) come from a public document. Although PD-PhilippinesPubDoc was originally meant for the presidential signatures anyway. --Sky Harbor07:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Pinay, Somebody here is saying it may not be under IP law but something about probably under civil law. Ako wala ako "take" kay dili ko abogado :-) User:Bolanon
Received via email: Pinay, Somebody from the IP Office said that we only need to secure permission from the heirs (for example,, for the photos of former presidents). Let's wait for the opinion of the other lawyers. --Ate Pinay (talk•email) 06:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Btw, di ba sinisingil sila Zach ng payment ng mga govt agencies? Which agency? They would like to know.:-) User:Bolanon
I believe that each agency has their own scheme on copyrights and payment issues. We should ask each department, though I have not gotten any emails from the government officials yet. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)21:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Erap's party consistently uses orange...actually, it's orange and blue. Trust me---I used to live in San Juan. --- Tito Pao17:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
So what colors do we assign then? Erap's party though might just be limited to Partido ng Masang Pilipino, which is not exactly a dominant party it just coalesces with the other major ones. Scorpion prinz23:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I'd rather place orange for all pro-Erap groups, but IMHO, political parties aren't that well known for their colors here in the Philippines. --HowardtheDuck02:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I guess we're being out done by ARMM's Regional Assembly - they are on a LGU-creation frenzy since they were granted the power to create new towns and provinces. COMELEC has promulgated Resolution 7801 which shows the creation of new legislative districts for the 2007 elections as well as the newest LGUs (not counting the barangays) created after the 2004 elections. Those we don't have articles are as follows:
I suggest that articles for the new municipalities with spelling discrepancies be not created for the meantime, until they are clarified. Please refer also to [3]
Nope. This is acknowledging a fellow Filipino's help and contribution to Wikipedia in Tambayan Philippines because he does not have his own wiki account, but has made great contributions nevertheless. --Ate Pinay (talk•email) 16:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
So that means I can add my blog link here, too. Don't forget the campaign websites of my senatorial bets, etc., etc. We should keep Wikipedia from these kinds of advertising. --HowardtheDuck10:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Please feel free to revert or delete any posting of mine that does not have a place here, Howard. It wouldn't matter. Either way, the events have taken place and the website has been launched, etc. regardless of what you and I say here. I just thought that as Filipinos, we should celebrate other Filipinos. I apologize if I thought wrong. Besides, we the Filipino wikipedians who have worked with AZ especially on the LH have shown our appreciation in other ways. This posting is just to include the Filipino wikipedia community in that appreciation of his significant contribution to wikipedia as a whole, esp. with the release of a lot of his works from copyrights to wikipedia. As a fellow UST alumni of his, you should have had more pride of his significant and notable accomplishments than any of us! --Ate Pinay (talk•email) 18:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
So might as well plug that Ginebra must lose today! It's a must! Go Beermen! (although I'm a PF fan). (You know, we should be having links to websites on the Wikipedia namespace, unless it is absolutely necessary. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promotion. And I assumed good faith since I didn't automatically delete the link.) --HowardtheDuck07:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
If you think it is notable? There is no preventing you! But what really is the big deal anywayz??? My plug on Ejemplo here, this and others. were not or never questioned! What makes the difference now? {{helpme}} understand! --Ate Pinay (talk•email) 10:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Ate Pinay, gawa ka na kasi ng Arnold Zamora article sa Chabacano Wikipedia. Tagal ko ng naghihintay na gumawa ka ng article doon. Oks lang mag mention ng websites outside Wikipedia. Di ba may external links sa mga articles? As long as relevant ang external links sa articles and done in good faith. Oks lang din mag mention ng websites sa discussion talk pages basta relevant and done, again, in good faith. Keep it cool. --Weekeejames12:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Check out this image from some government-made Super Regions thing. Does the map at the right look familiar? It took me a while before I recognized it, but it's an older version of Image:Metro manila map.png that I made. :) By the way, that image is taken from a PDF file available here. TheCoffee05:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, for our sake, the EDSA North Transit, or ENT, was cancelled. It seems that there is a very grave misconception about Wikipedia's "being free" in the Philippine setting: we take, but we don't give credit. The government is giving us problems with us using their images here, but they use Wikipedia's pictures freely without credit, showing possible disregard for the license(s) used. What an ironic world we live in. --Sky Harbor08:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Is there a higher authority we can appeal to on WP? We work so hard to clean up the country's image in the international community and there go our countrymen proving that image wrong. Shrumster10:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I would love to see the Intellectual Property Office or any of the courts take action on this once and for all. Wikipedia is too valuable for the government to ignore, especially since they are patrons of the service. If Section 176 can be amended to be less ambiguously worded (through PI or something like that), then that would be great. --Sky Harbor10:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Email me through wikipedia email to get the email addresses or names of lawyers at the IPO, as well as the people in Congress, who are working with us on this! You can lobby directly with them, too. It will be good if there are more of us hounding on them than just a handful of us now. They already know our issue/s. It will be good if they hear from more and more of us to hit the idea really home! --Ate Pinay (talk•email) 18:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
The recent WP decision was made by the Wiki Board. Higher than the Board will be Jimbo Wales, who already made the decision on removal of the images a few years back. --Ate Pinay (talk•email) 18:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Any authority higher than Jimbo himself would be the government, the only body powerful enough to make such decisions. When the government starts to tackle this issue, then possibly we can resolve this crisis. If Wikimedia Philippines comes to fruition (do join if you want), the first thing that I hope it will tackle is Section 176. --Sky Harbor01:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
If we use the images first, then we can still use them here on Wikipedia. But if the images came from the Government first, then that is where we run into problems. If contacting them is not suffice, then once WMPH gets started, use whatever power and channels you have to make sure such issues are solved. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)01:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Precisely the reason why we need to lobby with Congress first. Two of them are in the know, as of now, but with the sessions over, it will be hard! Still, we can continue to lobby so that this can be included in their agenda. Who knows one of them can go directly to GMA herself? And if our congress contact wins a seat in the Senate, then we are surely "in"!--Ate Pinay (talk•email) 02:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, know that "WE PEOPLE" are doing something other than posting here in Tambayan Philippines. User:Sky Harbor, pls email me to get the celfon numbers of our congressmen contacts which you can call directly! Please call them, too! Anybody else is welcome to get them from me...--Ate Pinay (talk•email) 15:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
As for contacting Congressmen, I suggest to do it after June 30 so that the 14th Congress (13th Congress is done, except PGMA needs campaign funds so she calls a special session) can accede to our "demands", and seeing they have other plans (like amending the constitution, impeachment and numerous Congressional inquiries), our "demands" will almost 100% never be met. --HowardtheDuck15:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, too late the warning...I have personally talked to two congressmen already, after contact with IPO laywers. It wouldn't hurt. They are aware now! With some committee meetings still taking place, who knows there is still some "hope" left for now? And yes, definitely, if not now, there is still the 14th Congress. More positive results if one congressman contact win the Senate seat! I really do not wait for things to happen. I try to make things happen!!!--Ate Pinay (talk•email) 15:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
As for acceding to our so-called demands, they are not ours per se. The congressmen contacts see them as Philippines issue. period! and not of anyone in particular. --Ate Pinay (talk•email) 15:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
(After 3 edit conflicts) Nah, the special session would be about passing the anti-terror bill, unless some Congressman has a draft now of what to amend, make it through three readings, then pass it to the Senate and three more readings, not to mention they must be in quorum; we should either find loopholes in the old law or wait for the 14th Congress to convene. Don't expect anything from the 13th Congress to follow our "demands", or as the "issue" as you put it, not to mention there isn't beneficial to get here, for them. --HowardtheDuck15:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Checking the numbers sent to me, I am surprised that Francis Escudero is willing to back us up (presuming he wins a Senate seat). I can ask my dad, who's running for Congressman of the legislative district of Marinduque, on the presumption he wins. And if she's there, I'll pay a visit to the campaign headquarters of Loren Legarda down the street, also presuming she wins...lol. --Sky Harbor14:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
TV ratings
Recently, someone has been adding TV ratings section (example: Magic Kamison) with dubious sources (like this). I wonder if these ratings section should be removed as these have laughable sources. I'd rather quote the tabloid directly than some blog. Also several "List of <tv program>" have proliferated and are nothing but fanboy contribs. --HowardtheDuck12:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I know. I hate the ratings sections, as they reek of stupid network wars and politics that should be taken off Wikipedia (and personally, off the face of the planet). If ratings were absolutely necessary, I'd prefer them in the same format as the Friends or Seinfeld articles - directly integrated into the paragraph texts that provide proper context. Right now, as it stands, having ratings sections for every single episode of every show smells of "palakihan na XXXX". Shrumster20:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
So remove them? IMHO most of these "ratings" are referenced from a blog, a highly unreputable source. I'd rather have the direct links from the tabloid. Might be hard though, these people are persistent. --HowardtheDuck08:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I obtained from the COMELEC several months back, election results for president, vice president, senator, house representatives, from 1946 to 1992. I had just finished uploading the breakdown of votes for President in the 1969 elections based on the material I photocopied from COMELEC. The report was actually based on the official canvass by Congress, which provides 3,043,122 as the votes obtained by Sergio Osmeña, Jr., it tallies with the breakdown I had added to the article. Please take note I haven't changed the initial total in the first part of the article which has 3,143,122. All other candidates, tallies with all available information and their breakdown. It's only Osmeña's which has a discrepancy of exactly 100,000.
What confuses me, all online information, notably The Philippine Presidency Project, including the book ...So Help Me God, indicate 3,143,122. So I don't know how to reconcile these figures.
FYI: According to this material I have there are 2 other vice presidential candidates in 1969, Victoriano Mallari who got a total of 229 votes and Modesto Jalandoni with 161 votes.— Scorpion prinz17:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Would there be a source in Congress to verify the correct figure? If there were, Congress would be the most reliable source because the official canvass was from them, the primary source of the figures. The discrepancy, obviously, was a typo error. --Weekeejames12:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Documents
Well, I would like to ask two things from the community:
First, to move my userpages on Wikimedia Philippines to the Wikipedia namespace (under the Tambayan Philippines header)
Second, to edit and complete the Articles of Incorporation I am presently drafting on. Do indicate changes in the following format: (modification/change: text).
Finally, this project is now moving ahead. It's been stagnant for a while, but I guess with the cooperation of the community, it can work! --Sky Harbor06:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
UPDATE: Now that we have five persons over the age of 18 to (hopefully) serve as incorporators, I can start the by-laws. Please drop some suggestions. --Sky Harbor22:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
At least it's working capital. The papers say different things: one says P100,000, the other says one million. There are ways for us to raise a million, right? --Sky Harbor13:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Maybe we can look into inviting some known philanthropist who can help us, maybe people from the Knowledge Channel or some other NGOs. —Scorpion prinz14:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Don't you mean 18? If it were 16 and above, I would be the very first and everyone would move down the list...lol. --Sky Harbor22:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
It's fine, but now onto more pressing issues, like who specifically can we ask/appeal to donate funds to raise one million pesos for initial working capital? --Sky Harbor22:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Sure, as much as I would love Seav play on Kapamilya, Deal or No Deal, is it sure-fire that we can raise one million? As far as I'm concerned, there is a 1 in 26 chance we might come P999,999 short (winning only one peso). But if raising capital is a risk, can someone text ABS-CBN for his participation? --Sky Harbor14:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I think we need to get our bylaws ready first so we can present something before we can commence on the fund raising. I'm thinking we also might need someone "influential" to be our face to the public. I don't know just a suggestion. —Scorpion prinz18:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Good idea, but I think we should finish the Articles of Incorporation first. At least there is a sense of what will be in the by-laws. --Sky Harbor22:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
(reindenting) Ummm... has anyone here ever done anything of this sort? Maybe put up a business before or something? (Not me.) Creating an SEC-registered foundation or even just a non-profit organization is not something done lightly. Founding college orgs don't count. :) BTW, there's a YahooGroup for Philippine Wikipedians (that encompasses all Filipino language Wikipedias). Maybe someone there can help out. Not all are active on the English Wikipedia. :) (And what's this about me playing on DonD? I don't consider myself lucky... Smart, yes, but lucky, no. Hehehe.) --seav14:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Sure, when we party-list, we'll represent the Philippine free-content community...lol. I don't even know where we can have an office. Maybe someone's house? --Sky Harbor22:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
By the way
Why is the pinoy wikimedia site inside a wikipedia user page? We can transfer it to Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines or any neutral location. Maybe we could request a space in the wikipedia foundation website. By the way, we need to buy www.wikimedia.ph, www.wikimedia.org.ph and wikimedia.com.ph before a squatter could get it. Remember pldt.com vs. pdlt.com.ph dispute?
For those who just tuned in, here are the sites I could suggest to visit:
I think its because the page is still on incubator. Well yeah, we need a Philippine Wikimedia website. I was thinking of putting up a small review corner of the Philippine Wikipedias (our Wikis in other Philippine languages) for reviews, suggestions, recommendations and stuff like that on the tambayan page. But I think its more appropriate if it were on a Philippine Wikimedia page. --Weekeejames18:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I suppose, but it hasn't been active since November 2006. And yes, the Articles of Incorporation were moved to meta. --Sky Harbor20:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Can the admins undelete the programs? I've seen on User talk:Centrix that someone has been tagging such programs with speedy deletion tags, on StarStruck's case it was "suspected copyright violation." Pwe, I've contributing on that page and there's no hint of copyvios perhaps on the latest edit before it was deleted.
I think it's related to the banning of User:Booze broads and bullets/User:Broads for copyright infringement. The deletion log on StarStruck (Philippine TV series) says "(Created by uncooperative copyright-infringing user)" so I think all the pages he was editing heavily either got close-up scrutiny by the admins and were deleted. I think they even deleted the GMA-show template the guy created. Shrumster15:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
As I've said, unless someone added a copyvio on the second-to-the-last edit, then someone tagged it with the copyvio template, the best thing to do is to revert. --HowardtheDuck06:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
The article on GMA Records was a copyright violation, so I had to delete that also. Pretty much, we have no problems if they are remade or redirected, just don't include the offending information (which was a copy and paste job from the GMA websites). User:Zscout370(Return Fire)07:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Is the whole article really copyvios? For example, Shrumster tagged Super Twins(?) for speedy deletion (jeez, forgot already since it's deleted, too. LOL), when the simple thing to do is to remove the "Synopsis" section (or revert it, since it was the 2nd-to-the-last version before Shrumster tagged it was copyvio-free. I still question the wisdom of the deletions since they could've been simply reverted. So can I ask for them to be undeleted and I'll look for the non-copyvio revision in the article history? --HowardtheDuck08:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Appeal
Again, I'm appealing that the articles be undeleted, since TV programs are notable, and were relatively clean when I last saw them. Deleting revision histories with copyvios will do the trick. I wonder why ABS-CBN articles, which are copyvios themselves for the most part, were spared? Lol. --HowardtheDuck15:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Probably because the editior who was banned didn't edit the articles about the ABS-CBN, so the admins did not check there. When I looked at the GMA Records, the entire lead section was cut and pasted from the "About Us" section, while the list was probably added on. That was my determination for deletion. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)17:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
But it's so much simpler to revert than delete isn't it? It's not that hard. Deletion removes everything, and it's not that trivial, TV programs and recording companies are notable, no matter what side of the ocean you're on. Looking at GMA Network articles, they're all decimated, hehe. And the ABS-CBN articles are copyvios (see this for example. (On another note, ABS-CBN was said to be exterminating their videos from Youtube, Wiki could be next.)) Again, I'd appeal to undelete these and one-by-one they'll be sanitized. --HowardtheDuck17:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Looking around, I was surprised to see I Luv NY deleted as that had virtually no prose and full of lists, impossible to have a copyvio, unless of course the revision before it was deleted had a copyvio; also the deletion log always says in the line of "created by user with history of copyright infrigement", etc. So if we found out that the Philippines was created by a user with history of copyright infrigement, then we'd hastily speedy delete it? No way Josẽ. --HowardtheDuck17:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
That's quite regular these days from either Kapuso or Kapamilya shows (note that I copied it verbatim from the Google archive). --HowardtheDuck14:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I re-created the Super Twins article. I made sure that there's no copyright violation in it. I also made it NPOV. Danngarcia and Howard the Duck also made contributions to it.
I just have a question. Why is the Controversy section removed for being "laughable"? I also agree that they are funny, but they also made their points about the alleged Sailor Moon rip-off. Anyway, I did not put them there to prove that they are right. I put them there to substantiate the existence of the controversy and to indicate what exactly are their allegations for calling the show a Sailor Moon rip-off. GMA Network itself admitted the existence of the controversy in an interview and then defended their own show anyway, which I also put up. Perryv04:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is now being used as a campaign tool by Filipino politicians running for office. The Philippine Daily Inquirer has just featured it. [4]. I guess we can watch their biographies to make sure they remain neutral, lest people be maligned. Scorpion prinz09:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I saw that article. The only thing that article really says is that candidates have articles, and everyone knows that. They're just implying without real evidence that Wikipedia is being used as a campaign tool. Anyone that knows Wikipedia can tell that candidates' articles being "updated as recently as February 12" is not newsworthy. But anyway, keep on the lookout for POV edits. TheCoffee10:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
As personal practice, I communicated with the politician's office after the fact to request for free images. I also added a caution on self-editing and the controversy on congressional and/or senatorial edits which has gained media attention in the U.S. as contained here and here! --Ate Pinay (talk•email) 10:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Proposal, save us from the propaganda invasion and delete all the candidates articles that did not exist before December 2004 (previous elections as a test on notability). AFD on the grounds that wikipedia is NOT a campaign tool. A simple list of candidates in the election article is enough for an encyclopedia. Place their bios here ONLY after the results show a victory. How can there be articles of candidates who are not guaranteed to win? :) --Noypi38004:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I think the fact that they're running a candidate for senator running a national campaign makes them notable enough to have an article (at least the 24 dudes running for senator with the admin and opposition). If you find POV edits, they can be reverted or 'neutralized'.TheCoffee04:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't know, maybe no since technically he wasn't Cory's husband when Cory became president, since the marriage vows are "...until death to us part". Dunno about other religions (but it doesn't matter anyway since all presidents were Christian). --HowardtheDuck15:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
AFAIK, the title First Lady/First Gentleman was never considered a formal office like, say, Chief of Staff or Executive Secretary, and as far as it goes it's just a moniker. --- Tito Pao15:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Good point, Chris. I was about to raise that up. I think another Philippine president was in the same situation (was it Quirino?), so the daughter filled up what would be considered as First Lady "duties". For Pres. Aquino, I'm not sure who played a similar role. --- Tito Pao13:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
For Cory, FVR tabako, was the first gentleman. HaHaHa! Now that is a joke. I was in High School when Cory was our president. There was NO first gentleman. Cory did all the tricks. =) --Weekeejames08:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
This article has been the object of a lot of edits by anon and new editors. These new and anon editors have persistently included statements that are not cited, or if they are, these are improperly cited, are against WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. Until such anons subscribe to these policies, this article will be the object of unscrupulous edits which will be harmful to the subject and his current political career in the Philippines. Hence, the urgency and importance of protection.--Ate Pinay (talk•email) 15:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Full disclosure: I was the one responsible for the protection request. I'll be posting more information on the article's talk page for more information on what led to the request (if you can't read it, then definitely I'm still writing it), and on other issues that can be expected and need to be addressed once a consensus has been reached for requesting unprotection. --- Tito Pao18:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Just thought of letting the tambays know: I noticed (through the main WP:TAMBAY project page) that the Maria Flordeluna article was apparently speedied even though it is currently airing. The rationale given was that it was a copyvio page. So now, we're in a position where the images of the now-deleted article are also orphaned because of this, on top of the IfD nomination for improper fair use licensing. --- Tito Pao18:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Don't worry, somone recreated the article, albeit without the images. They'll be readded once again later and will be reuploaded when the images are deleted (sigh). --HowardtheDuck06:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Congrats. Sometimes (or actually oftentimes), I get confused with portals and wikiprojects as far as the purposes of their existences are concerned. They seem to be overlapping each other. Wikipedia should have a committee of sorts in approving which portals or projects need to be created or not (with the consensus of wikipedians) just like the way we start a wikipedia in a language other than English. --Weekeejames08:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Hola! Que tal? Well, to me, IMHO, the wikiprojects are BIGGER IN SCOPE i guess with admins di ba? While the portal/s is just like an index or like a table of contents, a one-stop shop for topics of about the same idea or under the same umbrella. I don't know if tama ako, but with the Bohol Portal, it is not a wikiproject and very far from it. There are no management or admin people involved.Portal nga lang sa everything about Bohol. tama ba? Comments na lang kayo... --Ate Pinay (talk•email) 18:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Add that to requested images in WP:PINOY, but the faster way to do that would be to leave a message in the talk page of the Filipino Wiki Graphic Artists...or try the user who helped me with the Bohol Portal. He is good! --Ate Pinay (talk•email) 17:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I really wanna make sophisticated maps, is there a particular SW being used?, we need to update the political divisions. We also might need blank template maps for the provinces. —Scorpion prinz07:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm suspiciously thinking that this page is a copyvio. Can anyone confirm? (BTW, this page has been linked from most of the northern Luzon provinces. I'll try reverting when I have the time.) --seav13:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
lol. Best friend daw. Anyway, I used the rollback feature and undid all his edits and I gave him a usetemp warning. I had the same suspicious about that History of Isabela page as well. But it doesn't appear to be from a website; I tried googling. --Chris S.21:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
All the capitalization is burning my eyes! It does seem plagy. Oh well, if it is a thesis, it should be easy to revert/kill offending parts based on WP:NOR, as a thesis by definition is OR. :) Shrumster16:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
The old shortcuts for WP:NOR and WP:V still work, but will lead to their corresponding sub-sections w/in WP:ATT. Please take note of this when referring to policy (especially when leaving user warnings on user talk pages). Since these two oft-quoted policies are now merged, WP:ATT does a better job by killing two birds with one stone, so to speak ;-) Thanks. --- Tito Pao14:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Lol, and I thought WP couldn't get any more...anal? Well, at least the distinction between primary and secondary sources are clearer. We do have a serious problem with a lot of beginning editors doing OR, and a lot more not citing sources at all, so I guess these changes are for the better. Shrumster16:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Not just maps, but even pics are infringed
I was reading the newspaper today (PhilStar Feb 22) when I saw a political ad that seems to use this picture for its background. I scanned this photo from an EDSA book and included it in Wikipedia under fair use conditions. It seems that the designers of the political ad used this exact same picture because the original photo was much larger (I cropped it) and the same cropped image was used in the political ad (with some photoshopping done to extend the picture). It's arguable that our use of the copyrighted picture is under fair use, but the political group's (ALADYN) use of the photo is definitely an infringement. It's bad enough that people use our own original images, but it's even worse that they're using non-Wikipedian's works! --seav12:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Even if the image (the version right now) were taken by a Wikipedian, it won't pass FP. The criteria is quite stringent (e.g., picture must be at least 1000px in width or height, no visible JPEG artifacts, etc.). The photo fails both of the sample criteria. The photo is purposely of low quality so that the fair use rationale is better. --seav14:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if there's anything we can do about it. We don't own the copyright to that photo, so we can't press charges or anything. --seav14:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Gather round folks let's collaborate on Sonia Roco
I'm not asking for us to work on the article to get it to featured status. I'm just asking for your help to at least make the article worthy enough so that people in the Philippines, who look up for information on her so they can decide whether they want to vote for her or not, can have a solid reference. Please, let us do our part in promoting the good candidates in this election. She needs all the help she can get in campaigning compared to the other candidates. ^_^ Berserkerz Crit18:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
We can write about anyone, but promoting candidates per se? In as much as we want the good ones to be elected into office, we may have differring opinion about every candidate. I guess we should all stay neutral about the elections, present everything in an equal perspective. —Scorpion prinz01:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not saying make her article smell sweeter or more visible than other candidate's wiki pages. I'm saying, here's a good candidate for the Senate unlike her counterparts, who needs help getting elected, who is qualified, who we need to create a solid informative article on her so that people who look up on her to decide whether to vote for her or not can have a reference. People have always been saying, they're all the same, trapo silang lahat, and when a genuine candidate appears, we don't vote for him/her or do anything to help them get voted (much like what happened to Raul Roco). I'm not advocating bias and weasel words in Sonia Roco's article, I'm just asking for help in making the article better. Berserkerz Crit10:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Just a heads-up: a user, User:Loumag, has introduced herself as the daughter of Vicente Magsaysay after raising concerns about why her edits to the article were deleted (apparently, for copyvio concerns). I left a note on her talk page, explaining why it's not OK to cut and paste contents into WP and also giving her some links to policies and guidelines (NPOV among them). Her initial reaction to my comments was---how do I put it?---not exactly warm, so I'm trying to address her concerns as positively as I can. --- Tito Pao08:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Regular Batasang Pambansa should refer to the session of the Batasang Pambansa from 1984 to 1986. Batasang Pambansa is the legislative body itself or the structural complex. —Scorpion prinz11:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
So what do you propose? Do you want me to speedy delete tag it or blank it or what? Do you want to write an article for that page? Berserkerz Crit15:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Can't it be undone? (pretty please?) I'm actually gearing up to write about the Regular Batasang Pambansa (I already have the time), I have the list of its members per district and party, session dates, laws passed. I really believe there should be 2 separate articles for that. I'm gonna complete all the other legislatures, including the Japanese era national assembly - I gotta do something fruitful before I leave my beloved homeland. I can't certainly bring all these materials there. —Scorpion prinz16:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Me thinks Scorpion does not know how to override redirects. Well, I've made the redirect into a stub. Do your magic Scorpion. Berserkerz Crit17:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Please provide an accurate account on House members serving the 11th and 12th congress. It shows that Matias Defensor was the QC 3rd Dist. congressman. Isn't it Mike Defensor (11th) and Maite Defensor (12th)? Chuck Mathay for the 11th for the 2nd dist. of QC. I don't know for other members of congress. --Exec822:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
This isn't exactly related to any Philippine-related article, but since some of us here have raised concerns about potential vandals and unsourced statements on biographies of living persons (especially of those who are running for public office), there is an interesting case (reported at the Signpost) of someone actually suing some people because of an edit on Wikipedia:
We should monitor articles concerning running candidates. I'm not really bothered about lawsuits but our politicians have um... alternative means to fix their grudges----Lenticel06:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I nominated the article for GA seeing it covers the subject comprehensively and is well-referenced. If you can improve the article further, please do! =) Berserkerz Crit18:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
The article Kulintang is currently a good article nominee.
For background, kulintang music is the highest form of gong music ever attained by Filipinos. Becuase this musical genre also predates the influence of the West, Christianity and Islam, it is the closest example of how Filipinos lived prior to the lands of Magellan and Sharif Makdum in the central and south of the Philippines.
The article is currently under peer review so if you believe you have any ideas for improving it, level them here. Any ideas will be appreciated. Thanks - PhilipDM21:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Stubified. Not really my thing, and this is honestly the first time I've ever heard of the place, so I can't really expand on it. Shrumster08:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I noticed just now that the red is on the left side and blue is on the right side. When the Philippine flag is displayed vertically, the blue should be on the left and the red on the right. Hope someone could switch the colors. =) Berserkerz Crit12:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I keep on including 1919, 1922, 1925, 1928, 1931 elections in the template. It's always being removed... If we don't have the dates for those elections, as User:Rizalninoynapoleon noted why he always removes it, does it erase the fact that elections were held in those years? If we don't have the exact dates, doesn't it pose a challenge for us to go research? The National Library isn't really the most ideal place to research but it's the best we can do...or perhaps try the Congressional Library at the Batasan Complex. I had to revert it to include those years. —Scorpion prinz15:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I must add, the list is wild, maybe we should really talk about what must be and musn't be there. I've seen the previous topic about this, but maybe we can now come up with a consensus? —Scorpion prinz15:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Good source: Comelec Library. Too difficult to look elections in the 1940s and 1950s but at least there are new things to see like senatorial elections in the mid 1950s to 1992. Kindly provide us a complete senatorial tally (even loosers) from 1995 to 2001. --Exec822:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
COMELEC doesn't have election records prior to 1946. They were only established 1940, so other elections prior to that year must be researched at the National Library/Congressional Library (at least the latter is airconditioned, you may bring your notebook its a wifi zone). —Scorpion prinz06:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
MRT vandalism
Looks like now we need to be vigilant on Kamuning MRT Station. As much as I understand that Timog is a gay hotspot in Quezon City (according to the article), I don't think the article should reflect that. The article has been reverted four times in the past few weeks, and the last case of related (or even identical) vandalism was yesterday. --Sky Harbor23:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
After reading the stub, the whole GMA/ABS-CBN thing is entirely unnecessary as well. Well, it's important to mention GMA, as the station is referred to as GMA-Kamuning station, but that's about that. Shrumster14:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Then again, it's mentioned in the Timog section of the Quezon City article. For what I really meant (which is obviously more disturbing), check the history. --Sky Harbor20:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Is there anyone willing to update this map? Image:Ph_regions_and_provinces2.png I tried doing it myself, but it is not looking right. What it needs:
Changing MIMAROPA to MIMARO
Changing Palawan's shading to Western Visayas shading.
New province, Dinagat Islands.
Hurm, is that it? And also since some cities are independent (Zamboanga, Davao & Baguio), should they have their own shading? Just a thought. --Chris S.03:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Sure, whichever one would be fine. Hmmm.. Or perhaps the one you just found is perfect since Shariff Kabunsuan is not on it. The font used for Shariff Kabunsuan is different and thus it's kind of bugging me. ;-) --Chris S.06:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't know how many of you have heard of this, but since this involves one of the most visible personalities on WP: Essjay has resigned from the Wikipedia (or "retired" per his user page) and has had all his privileges (admin, steward, bureaucrat and even the sub-pages of his user page) removed/deleted. It'll take me a lot to explain what happened, but the RFC page about him explains the situation better. Opinions about him and on the issue is heavily divided, as seen on the contents of the RFC and his user talk page. --- Tito Pao07:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
As one who sat in on the IRC debates about Essjay, I would suggest to not add fuel to the fire. Everything that should be said has been said and everything that wishes to be done has been done. There is nothing much what we can do for now. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)08:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
He helped me out on the help desk a long time ago, and I gave him my enthusiastic vote of support at his RFA. It's too bad to see him go out dishonorably like this. TheCoffee09:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I was equally saddened to see him go like this. I've learned a lot by reading his posts and his edits. It's good to know, however, that despite what happened in this incident, some users have still showed their support for Essjay. He will be surely missed. --- Tito Pao14:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Makes me realize that when anyone can edit just about anything, credibily is always at stake, and yes what a weird weird world Wikipedia is. Just my two cents on this, I think Jimbo Wales did the right thing in asking Essjay to leave, and I think Essjay was courageous and humble enough to walk away. --Weekeejames14:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
He facilitated my change of username and I worked with him during the Board elections as part of translation efforts from English to Tagalog. What do we do now? What happened to him I can compare to the "dot and circle" theory we learned in Filipino class. --Sky Harbor20:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Life goes on in Wikiland, I think, although some valid concerns were raised in the light of this incident. As ZScout has mentioned, the case has already rested (and, IMO, in such an extremely short time), and even Jimbo himself has urged everyone to move on. Tuloy lang ang buhay, ika nga. There were some proposals as a result of these, but that deserves another topic of its own. --- Tito Pao21:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I noticed just now that the red is on the left side and blue is on the right side. When the Philippine flag is displayed vertically, the blue should be on the left and the red on the right. Hope someone could switch the colors. =) Berserkerz Crit 12:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
