User talk:Seav

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

Tagagamit:Nickrds09

Hello there. This needs to be closed. Building a group that will continue maintaining Tagalog Wikipedia is really important. Thank you. - AnakngAraw (talk) 02:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you... - AnakngAraw (talk) 15:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Please see this reply. thanks Yug (talk) 10:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see reply, all my apologize. Yug (talk) 11:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Use of Philippines Map.

Hello, I would like to discuss the use of your Regions and Providences map (I am aware of the license but I have a couple of additional questions.) If there is a way to contact you directly let me know (I'm guessing that posting E-Mails here isn't a good idea. I am a total newbie when it comes to community interaction in Wikipedia)

Thank you, Wjkrape (talk) 17:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am editing a video for a charity organization based in the Philippines and I wanted to make double sure your maps are okay to modify and use in the film. I have read and reread the license and I will be sure to include a reference as the piece will be distributed more than 100 times (hopefully.) Also I just wanted to make sure you were aware of this use and are okay with it (no matter how free the license.) Thanks. (edit, forgot to login) Wjkrape (talk) 20:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ramz Trinidad

Hi. Pwde po b pkilagay lng po sa watchlist nyo c User:Ramz Trinidad, ayaw nya kcng magalaw ung ineedit nya like San Jose del Monte City, atbp. At mrami dn cyang accounts, User:Nctramz, User:Punkramz at User:Ramz Trinidad. Thanks. Secaundis (talk) 09:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

question

Just a random survey, you are saying here that years should never be linked? -- Kendrick7^talk 04:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. I'm saying that dates (not years) should almost never (not absolutely never) be linked. --seav (talk) 04:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the feedback. -- Kendrick7^talk 04:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I have no opinion yet for the year links. --seav (talk) 04:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the repetitive question, but I am a bit confused. You think that date fragments and most other chronological items (e.g. March 6 or Sunday) are not useful, but you have no opinion on year links, correct? Dabomb87 (talk) 04:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What matters to me is his opinion when he voted support and what he believed he was voting in support of. Badgering him now won't change that. -- Kendrick7^talk 05:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not badgering him; I hadn't even looked at the RfC or his !vote. However, it seems that my question will reveal nothing new so I will strike it. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. -- Kendrick7^talk 05:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, amigo. It wasn't my intention to make you a dalai lama, a sacred cow, or otherwise put you in a star chamber. But I do appreciate your clarification provided at the RfA page. -- Kendrick7^talk 03:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No biggie. :-) --seav (talk) 06:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enrique de Malacca and Wikipedia's definition of original research

Please see my reply to your observation that Enrique de Malacca as written by me violates Wikipedia's stated policy on "original research." What is Wikipedia's definition of "original research"? --Vicente Calibo de Jesus (talk) 02:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your message.

Yes, I am that too. Thanks for the notification. I am aware of that. I created another account so that I can continue to edit the pages I created. I just want to know if ever I transfer the concepts I put from my old user name will affect my new account? Thanks again.

Anyway, Against all odds version by Westlife and Mariah Carey is truly a good music. Hear it. ^_^ xoxo --I heart CE! (talk) 13:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good day.

I was supposed to reply to your message earlier than expected but I am sorry about this. First and foremost, you sent me a message telling that supposedly, I am User:Johnlemartirao, which I gratefully responded telling that I am that user, to prevent further grounds. I also tell you that I am aware that I should never and must never remove the blocking template applied to my user page since it will serve as grounds for another account blocking. I'm afraid it might happen, though I can edit my old user page and remove all blocking templates, I still have the heart not to do so. I then believed that everything might end up there.

Furthermore, I was surprised to see your message. I thank you again for the notification. But I'm afraid to say that the way you boldfaced the word "understanding" turned out to be offensive. I know you know all extremes here in Wikipedia, but please, even though you did and still doing good things and edits here in Wikipedia, still practice humility.

I know why my account was blocked, and that was due about disruptive editing. I believe you do understand what I want to figure out on the reasons I stated on my old talk page, and it turns out that they misinterpreted what I try to say. At the end of each posts, I apologize for bad grammars in the reason line, but they decline my request saying that "there are many non-English speakers that uses Wikipedia, and you are not an exemption". How come up? They keep on insisting that I should remain unblock because of that apology. Plus, I strongly believe that I provided reasons, that is, I said that I do not know that administrators are the only person who have the right to use that template. I do not know what valid reason they wanted me to point out, since this is the only reason and "behinds" I knew about the use of that template. And from this point of view, and the results of permanently protecting the talk page by using the unblock template over and over again without any unblocking action, I cannot further restore all the required thingies by using the same account. I hope you understand this. Please look to my statement as a whole, and not just like the administrator who didn't took it very keen. (I am not accusing them).--I heart CE! (talk) 12:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I can't figure out how the idea came to your mind that I am also User:Johnlemartirao. What if two different individuals from two different continents share the fields of interest in editing and with the same degree in college, will be the same person?--I heart CE! (talk) 12:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I won't take your messages to me as heart breaking words. I will take it as an advice from an older brother and from a more senior editor here in Wikipedia. Thanks for the advice again and to your instincts.--I heart CE! (talk) 09:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beat me

Hah, you beat me to the revert by less than a minute. :p TheCoffee (talk) 16:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AnakNgAraw

AnakngAraw said that it's B-class, not C? --Secaundis • (myTalk) • (myContribs) 14:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the facts are on the sta. maria website, only the population and income are not in the website. ok i'll put some references on it tomorrow. thanks. --Secaundis • (myTalk) • (myContribs) 15:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NowCommons: File:Metro manila map.png

File:Metro manila map.png is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Metro manila map (1).png. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Metro manila map (1).png]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 23:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I do not know what is happening here, because we had an agreement with the blocker who blocked my account. Thanks. Have a nice Holy Week. The Wandering Traveler (talk) 14:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And another, please do not make grounds for further blockage of my new user account. I have promised to whoever may block me that I shall not do it evident from my user talk page. I haven't been involved to any disruptive edits since I've changed. I hope you understand my side. Please assume good faith. Thanks. I do not want to fight. You also created the old user name that was supposed to be deleted to serve as bait for further blockage. Thanks. God bless.--The Wandering Traveler (talk) 07:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand me. I just placed a note there on the old user page so that there is a greater transparency. Like it or not, there is a connection between your old user account and your new user account that I am just making that fact clear and up front. I am not pushing for blocking or banning you. --seav (talk) 09:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help with rangeblock

Can you help us do a rangeblock here in tl.wiki?. It seems that the IP is a problem user in en.wiki as well.--Lenticel ^(talk) 02:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thanks.--Lenticel ^(talk) 03:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image violator

I suggest making a case in wp:ani if the editor does not stop uploading invalid images. --Lenticel ^(talk) 15:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Misjudegement of User:Petersantos?

This user was indefinitely blocked for sock puppetry, I know he did used multiple accounds. But his edits were not vandalism. He is editing a very controversial article about a Filipino preacher, Eliseo Soriano. I really belive his block was only pushed by a POV editor (who was already warned to stop here POV edits) who is against the opinion of that user. Please check if it is possible to reduce his block time. (I am very sorry for not logging in, because their "going after me" too.)222.127.223.69 (talk) 03:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tambayan 2009 Meet in planning

Found this in the internet.[1] Seems so cute, noh?[2] Are you joining the next meet of Pinoy Wiki meeting?---124.106.81.33 (talk) 09:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]