Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15

Have you heard of Wikipiniana (aka WikiPilipinas)

Wikipiniana is apparently a new site that seems to be like Wikipedia but for Filipino topics. It's currently a full-fledged fork of Philippine-related topics from Wikipedia. What say you? --seav 03:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Should we sign-up there as well? hehe. =) -- • Kurt Guirnela • ‡ Talk 03:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I think it's a complete waste of effort seeing as they've adopted Wikipedia's philosophies (e.g., NPOV) and policies wholesale. They've already got several active contributors--who could've been Wikipedians instead. We really need to get Wikimedia Philippines going. --seav 03:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
We do have a Philippines Wikia with 2 articles. --Howard the Duck 04:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
But Wikia is designed to be a commercial endeavor that is sponsored by ads. It can co-exist with Wikipedia. Wikipiniana, on the other hand, seems like duplicated effort. --seav 04:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
We can make it a dumping ground of deleted articles though. Some Philippine-related articles which were deleted can be "transfered" there. --Howard the Duck 04:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

(resetting indent) Hmm...okay, since some of the articles were lifted from this site, do you think we might consider this as a fork of WP? --- Tito Pao 06:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

If they ripped off articles from here, they should say where it came from. --Howard the Duck 06:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. -- • Kurt Guirnela • ‡ Talk 06:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Yep, they took articles from Wikipedia and took it correctly. There's a link to the original Wikipedia article at :the bottom and they're licensed under the GFDL. So they're technically a fork. --seav 09:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I would call them a fork. If WMPH were established, we should include Wikipiniana in its scope. Or if not, we should encourage "Wikipinianians" to join Wikipedia. --Sky Harbor 09:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I joined the community and peppered it with references to Wikipedia. I've started tagging my maps (e.g., this physical map of the Philippines) that they included there and pointed it to my user page and to Wikipedia. I've also put up Wikipedia-cheerleading prose on my user page there to convince Wikipinianians to contribute to Wikipedia instead. I think we should all do the same. And tagging TheCoffee's locator maps would also help. --seav 19:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Bad news for WMPH. They've recently registered WikiPilipinas.org, WikiPhilippines.org, WikiPilipinas.org, and WikiPinas.org. --seav 03:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

That would be bad. We have to register all Wikimedia-related domains (including the key www.wikimedia.org.ph) and possibly invite them to discuss WMPH-related stuff. I also feel sad that editors on Wikipiniana are also, according to this poll on their forum, supportive of making an identity separate from Wikipedia. I don't want a Spanish Wikipedia-Enciclopedia Libre controversy to break out here. --Sky Harbor 12:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, you guys might want to read my blog entry about Wikipiniana. You might find the visitor comments interesting. --seav 08:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

" We love to compete, and we believe that competition brings out the best in us. "--Exec8 12:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
The best way to defeat an enemy is to make him an ally. Good for real wars, strategy games and maybe in this situation as well.--Lenticel (talk) 12:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

You guys are really good in what you are doing and we all love Wikipedia, but I think as fellow Filipino, putting your fellowmen down is kinda having a "crab mentality" attitude. They want to do it, fine.. maybe they have their own reasons and we respect that. I visited Wikipiniana twice already and I found that there are "fork" articles that made it to balloon that fast. But I have noticed that they were trying to redefine an encyclopedia based on contents the wikipinians have contributed and still contributing.

Seav, Putting commentary narrative(can be considered as vandals) in a wiki site to promote something is a "no-no" to wikipedia's policy and I think they have the same,too. So it's not possible that moderators or editors can just erased that instantly and may brand you into something else. If they want to waste resources, fine! its not our loss anyway, but we never know what entice these volunteers to contribute to Wikipiniana instead to Wikipedia. Can this be considered as a break-away from Wikipedia? 122.52.32.190 07:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

More or less it could, but for something to be considered a breakaway in this sense requires that existing Wikipinians were Wikipedians first (i.e.Spanish Wikipedia-Enciclopedia Libre controversy). Before Filipiniana.net even considered making Wikipiniana, I wish they considered Philippine content on Wikipedia first. But then again, if that's how Gaspar Vibal and (possibly) his affiliated publishing companies want it, let them be. --Sky Harbor 09:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Sigh. Michael, I'm sure it's you commenting here since you brought up the "crab mentality" argument on my blog also. Yes, it's not our loss if they "want to waste resources" but I'm really concerned with the waste of effort due to duplication. Now it will be about doubly hard maintaining the quality of the same articles in both Wikipedia and Wikipiniana. --seav 09:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
So they're claiming they're not a fork yet they use Wikipedia content? --Howard the Duck 11:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
The name is terrible, but, man, the site of the parent org, www.filipiniana.net, is amazing! I was giddy with geeky joy as I was browsing through the sources they have made available online!
But going back to Wikipiniana. (again, the name is terrible... the most imporatant part of filipiniana is filipin!) At first sight, it seems to be a needless redundancy to Wikipedia. But considering the sources in filipiniana.net, I think the filipiniana wiki (I can’t stand its official name) can have its own niche. I think it could be the biggest open source collaborative research infrastructure in Philippine history! (I mean that in both senses). The value proposition of the filipiniana wiki, I think, is that you can do original research, something you couldn’t and shouldn’t do in Wikipedia, and something which is sorely lacking in Philippine scholarship (we need more historians!) I’m singing up now! --Nino Gonzales 02:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
There's a reason why Original Research is frowned upon, especially in open edit softwares like Wikis. Berserkerz Crit 05:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I could understand NOR in Wikipedia or any encyclopedia, but I don't see why wikis could not be used for collaborative research (in fact, they are). And if software and enclyclopedias can be created with the opensource model, I don't see why original research couldn't. --Nino Gonzales 15:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Skeptical and a little annoyed for now, but on the positive side, it could become a good reference on its own terms ...eventually. But we could use their people, and they're getting part of our audience... Annoyed since they copied Pugad Baboy - one of the first articles I ever edited, while still anonymous. Amused since I added a long deleted "list of ripped-off sources for Encantadia", which I started! OR is allowed, right? Heh! But I plan on doing nothing else there - pretty much a Wikipedia loyalist. It's pretty much "just another fork on the web" now. A little envious of their media coverage. Uthanc 15:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

A semi-official response from Wikipiniana

The following statement was posted by Wikiboy, one of their sysops, on my blog entry. --seav 21:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Chk Chk!… I never thought that a single comment I made could spark a thread this hot! I prefer to keep mum about the issue being raised by Seav ’coz i have a lot of other important tasks to do at Wikipiniana. However, I believe its about time we air our side and clear certain misconceptions…so i am making an exception.
First, let me start by saying that Wikipiniana.org is still in its initial stages of development. In fact, it has not even been officially launched yet! (You’re all invited by the way.) That is why I, being part of Wikipiniana, am flattered by comments, positive or negative, pertaining to our project. I am grateful for the arguments raised here and our team welcomes all suggestions. I assure you that everything is being carefully weighed and considered.
Wikipiniana is a project still under development, envisioned to evolve in a direction determined by the variety and depth of the contributions inputed by Wikipiniana volunteers. Regarding being tagged as ’fork’ of Wikipedia (because some of Wikipiniana’s contents are from Wikipedia), that, we accept, but only for now. These articles are being expanded by a pool of writers, editors, and volunteers with a lot to share about the Philippines. Some of it can’t be accommodated by Wikipedia because of some restrictive policies. And as Wikipiniana moves forward—with the help of a new generation of readers—a new community different from that of Wikipedia’s will be formed inside our pages. Edgier and more exciting content will be developed as our editorial board is tirelessly working to give the site a unique and definitive identity. Editorial policies and other guidelines will eventually be modified.
Wikipedia is a very useful source of information, but let’s face it, it cannot absorb all the information we, Filipinos, have to offer. And while everyone has been talking about neutrality, we at Wikipiniana believe that Filipinos deserve something more. Since the start of contemporary history, the Philippines has been bombarded by writings on us but not by us. Unknowingly, we are actually reading our own history as it is written by foreigners. Fortunately, we were rescued by the likes of Constantino, Agoncillo, and Ambeth Ocampo. It is in this light that we from Wikipiniana hope to give the world OUR take on things. We believe it is about time the world hears what we want to say. We want to give the Philippines and our fellow Filipinos a site to call our own – Pinoy in origin, Pinoy by design, Pinoy by heart.
Wikipiniana is only building a facility for Filipinos to share their knowledge about their own country and it is for free. At present, Wikipiniana allows any substantial articles. Try to visit the site and take a peek of what these volunteers are doing.
Wikipiniana is just starting up guys and we need all the help we can get. Peace to all detractors and thanks to those who aired their support for the Wikipiniana project. I don’t want to argue or make personal attacks on anyone since that’s not how a Wikipedian or Wikipinian works. Wikipinians have welcomed (User:Seav) and (USer:Nino Gonzales) to the site without question. In fact, we would like to thank Seav for his contributions and for his help in sanitizing our contents.
PEACE to everyone… let’s move forward!
A spade is still a spade however they call it, whether they like it or not. --- Tito Pao 00:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks/Vwxyz#Wikipiniana. --Howard the Duck 03:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Since they want more content, lets just put all the trash (AFDs, SDs, prods) Wikipedia cleans up. --Howard the Duck 02:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
We should not do that. Both Wikipedia and Wikipiniana and its readers deserve quality articles. That's my opinion about this matter. Dragonbite 02:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually, some of the deleted content on Wikipedia aren't that bad, they're just not notable, for example, fringe teen idols and Pinoy BB housemates. If they can't be here, then they can be there. --Howard the Duck 02:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm extremely unhappy. At the pace Wikipiniana goes, all Philippine-language Wikimedia projects will be emulated in some form. This I fear will lead to a splitting of communities on all Philippine-language Wikipedias (and Tagalog will end up being split even further into the Tagalog/Filipino and Taglish camps, which I fear the most) due not only to an emulation of effort, but the fact that all or most articles on one Wikipedia will be available on a similar Wikipiniana is quite fearsome. I'm not even quite fond of the names (WikiFilipino, WikiTaglish, WikiKapampangan, WikiPangasinan, etc.), but I'm happy that at least Kinaray-a and Hiligaynon will be unaffected, as well as the Tagalog Wiktionary, Wikinews and Wikibooks. I have a bad feeling that Wikipiniana and affiliated projects will end up filling the WMPH void, which is doubly bad. --Sky Harbor 13:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Did you notice that they shut down Wikipiniana and went with WikiPilipinas? Hey, I think these guys have a chance in being a successful Web 2.0 start-up... they actually listen to their users... hehe... Don't worry dude, I get the feeling that they are in this for profit (nothing wrong with that; I've been thinking about it as well). I think they will realize sooner or later that the money is not in connecting knowledge but in connecting people... I bet in a few months you will not see FA status level articles on the Vito Cruz LRT Station but pages on highschools, barkada gimik plans and family histories full of pictures and colorful fonts... And that would be good for Wikipedia... it will be training ground for future Pinoy Wikipedians... once they get wiki editing and collaboration skills, you just need to take care of writing and research skills... --Nino Gonzales 15:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure how: some of their lists can be considered highly subjective (hmm...top 10 beauty doctors, tourist spots, unsung heroes, etc.). I just hope nothing bad happens, and with respect to the Philippine-language Wikipilipinas wikis, that communities will not be split. --Sky Harbor 23:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

They'll have their official launch on this coming International Book Fair at the end of August. They'll definitely receive some media mileage then and the community split between the two projects will be "official". I suggest we try contacting the organizers and try to come up with some form of arrangement so that the duplication of scope is minimized. I'm hoping for the same kind of arrangement Apple has with the developers of the Konqueror web browser. Apple's web browser, Safari, uses Konqueror's KHTML web rendering engine. Any improvements Apple makes to the KHTML engine is given back to the KHTML development community. If there's a way for Wikipilipinas to bring back substantial improvements to overlapping articles in Wikipedia, then it's a win-win situation for both, right? Who's with me? --seav 02:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I support wholeheartedly. I think a mutual relationship, even if Wikipilipinas tries to distance itself from Wikipedia, would be beneficial to both parties. Hopefully the same will go with WMPH and Filipiniana.org. --Sky Harbor 10:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Lol, I wouldn't worry too much about redundancy. They seem to be finding their niche quite well. I find it quite difficult to take seriously an "encyclopedia" that has articles for (purely subjective subject) Cutest PBA Players, (according to who?) All-Time Hunks, Prominent families (based on what?), 10 Most Corrupt Agencies (very misleading since their sole source is a public SURVEY) and Weirdest Creatures. (as a systematic zoologist, I find none of these "weird". Obviously written for a layman, by a layman.) There are tons more unencyclopedic articles. I'm not that perturbed though. They could act pretty much like Zion for the machines in the MAtrix universe. i.e. that's hopefully where the people who would otherwise add unencyclopedic info on WP go. Shrumster 20:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC) </ br> heh, dyan tayo magaling, mag-pirate =D †Bloodpack† 04:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Man, it seems it is going tabloid. I had high hopes for it. I'm submitting an article on the "turf war" between Wikipedia and WikiPhilippines to a local tech magazine on Aug 7. Would appreciate your feedback. --Nino Gonzales 07:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I hate this OR thing in Wikipilipinas and you should note this in the article. This new wiki places the contributor at equal footing with academics. At best they might put misleading info, at worst they are spitting at the faces of scholars.
Here is a scholar who spent months or even years to create, prove and finally publish his research paper. Now this WikiPilipinas contributor comes along and says otherwise. Since its "hip" and all, people will believe WikiPilipinas rather than that proven paper. Now that would really be a problem. Your dream of a progress in Phil. history will crumble as people publish historical paper after paper with "I think so" and "I read this on the internet" arguments courtesy of Wikipilipinas.

--Lenticel (talk) 09:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I updated the article with a discussion of NOR. If you take a look at Vibal's comments in its discussion page, it seems they are not setting contributors and academics at equal footing, segregating the pop (wikipilipinas) and the academic (filipiniana.net). It would have been an interesting experiment to mash them up. --Nino Gonzales 14:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Wikipedia alone has a lot of trouble with unsourced statements, even with the increased emphasis on reliable sources and the like. In order for WPinas to even approach the level of credibility of WP, extreme measures must be taken to curb the tabloid-like nature of the wiki. And personally, WP doesn't even have that much credibility within the academic and educational fields. I know I don't let my students use WP as a source, and utterly kill them if they do. :P Shrumster 10:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
To the best of my knowledge, Wikipedia does not make a guarantee that all articles are 100% reliable. Other encyclopedias make this claim as well; a great number of articles in the 11th edition of Encyclopedia Brittanica contains a lot of information that, if used today, will be certainly erroneous (and, yes, there were also disclaimers on that edition). Even printed encyclopedias will have these disclaimers because facts change and so does the world. The consensus---at least, for some editors---is that Wikipedia should be a starting point of research (see also this and this) and not as the only point of research (that's what the External Links and the References are for). In the first place, WP aims to be a free online repository of knowledge, and this is where we (the editors) all come into the picture: we help build the encyclopedia by contributing knowledge and we also help improve the quality of WP articles by constant revisions and rewrites of articles (not to mention vandal reverts). Having said that, I am still having problems with a "free and hip" wiki that claims to be an encyclopedia loaded with things that are better found in a tabloid. If you are a school teacher or a college professor, would it sit well with you knowing that some of your students will be referencing a site that contains unlikely topics such as "top 10 scams" (defined by what criteria?), "best churches for weddings" (according to whom? to Wikipilipinas' owners? to a professional wedding organizer?) and "sexiest actresses" (according to whom? FHM? Maxim? Uno? your friendly neighborhood barber?)? Unless Wikipilinas wakes up from this honeymoon period and take stock of the trash that is littered all over their place, I can't take their website seriously for now as an "encyclopedia". --- Tito Pao 00:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

WikiPilipinas' vision lacks clarity. It is trying to be everything all at once: magazine, putative encyclopedia, pluralistic community forum, soapbox-for-a-day, rumor rag, fight club. It is a pastische of different entities, each of which has been successful on its own, but it remains to be seen whether they will be as successful when smashed together. It is less an organic fusion as it is an unnatural pile-up of knowledge-sharing methodologies taken from Euro-America. In many ways, it is symptomatic and representative of the Philippine condition. --- shdl3423 02:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

It's now so gay. --Howard the Duck 02:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

And it seems their website is down. --Howard the Duck 02:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I hate Wikipiniana as much you do, but please don't use the word "gay" as a pejorative. That ain't cool. ;) shdl3423 05:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Gay can also mean happy, since they're into making a hip encyclopedia. Maybe an encyclopedia for hippies, or whatever. --Howard the Duck 06:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment Their forking is shoddy. It seems like in their rush to excise anything "non-Philippines-related", they neglected a LOT of articles that *are* wikilinked in the articles that they did decide to port over. Took a look around their organism-related articles...each and every description has a ton of red links. If they mean to keep their scope as Philippines-oriented as possible, they're going to have to unlink thousands of red links in the articles that they copied over. Or rewrite everything. Shrumster 09:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Further comment They just decided to make a Bikol WikiPilipinas. Great. What about the Bikol Wikipedia? --Sky Harbor 10:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't think they'll be that big soon. If and when they start having vandals (when vandals start registering), then they're big. --Howard the Duck 12:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello tambays! I'm back! What's new? I just went to see this wikipiniana and waaaaa walang Chavacano (unfair unfair unfair!)...anyway, oks lang. Mukhang wannabes naman sila and good luck na lang sa kanila in the spirit of...whatever! Sky Harbor: whatever happened to our proposal?...Can you please update me? I just gave my full support for the Bikol Wikipedia over at meta.. so to all Bicolanos, Good luck! Jondel: I'm back... are you ready to help me (again) with Chavacano Wikipedia? Seems like I have so many things to do as far as catching up here. ^_^ --Weekeejames 13:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

There's a simple explanation: Chavacano is too small while Pangasinan hosts both a Wikipedia and a Wiktionary. Oh well. WMPH is stunted on member growth; we need more members since 20 is "critical mass" for membership. --Sky Harbor 10:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
WMPH has only 15 members as of yet. Perhaps, we should put a link at the main tambay page, the main portal of Filipino wikipedians who frequent the English wikipedia. --Weekeejames 10:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
What's WMPH? Shrumster 01:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Wikimedia Philippines. See http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Philippines --Weekeejames 04:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Coverage of WikiPilipinas

Old Media

New Media

I guess the anti-NPOV policy also applies to news items. With simple selective quoting, I have just become their biggest fan. What I wrote:
The name is terrible, but, man, the site of the parent org, www.filipiniana.net, is amazing! I was giddy with geeky joy as I was browsing through the sources they have made available online!
But going back to Wikipiniana. (again, the name is terrible... the most imporatant part of filipiniana is filipin!) At first sight, it seems to be a needless redundancy to Wikipedia. But considering the sources in filipiniana.net, I think the filipiniana wiki (I can’t stand its official name) can have its own niche. I think it could be the biggest open source collaborative research infrastructure in Philippine history! (I mean that in both senses). The value proposition of the filipiniana wiki, I think, is that you can do original research, something you couldn’t and shouldn’t do in Wikipedia, and something which is sorely lacking in Philippine scholarship (we need more historians!) I’m singing up now! --Nino Gonzales 02:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
What the blog says:
Nino Gonzales, an information technology blogger and a Filipino member of the rival Wikipedia team, called WikiPilipinas, “the biggest open-source collaborative research infrastructure in Philippine history.” In a follow-up article in a tech magazine on August 7, Gonzales predicted an impending Wikipedia versus WikiPilipinas turf war.
--Nino Gonzales 14:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • "Wikipilipinas: From a Wikipedia subset to one-stop hub on RP" - This blogger also thinks that there's hardly an point to WikiPilipinas as it exists right now but is willing to give it the benefit of the doubt.
  • "Why I Believe in Wikipilipinas" - Dennis Villegas' piece praising the WikiPilipinas and Filipiniana.net projects. He shares the enthusiasm of Gus Vibal for a Pinoy-centric resource site and mentions at the end that he has switched completely to being a WikiPilipinas contributor from being a Wikipedian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seav (talk • contribs) 01:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Searches

NOTE: WikiPilipinas sponsored the Wika2007 blog writing contest. So some blog entries may only mention WikiPilipinas as a sponsor and the blog post itself is the contest entry.

Wikipedia article

  • WikiPilipinas Just so you guys should know, someone already started an article. We might want to chip in so that the article meets *ahem* Wikipedia standards. :) Shrumster 16:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I would like to note that this is a partial port from their About article. --Sky Harbor 22:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Isn't that copyright infringement? --Howard the Duck 14:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Maybe, maybe not. The whole thing's under the GFDL, and just state that the thing came from WikiPilipinas and you comply with the license immediately. --seav 17:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Wouldn't it be interesting if the Wikipedia article on WikiPilipinas ranked higher than the WikiPilipinas home page itself? --seav 10:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Been fixing the article. Feel free to chip in if you guys find any ideas. Not sure how it should go, never worked on an article about a content-provider web service before. Shrumster 08:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Wow. Now I'm a Wikipedia source. Hehehe. --seav 16:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Although Wikipedia frowns upon blogs as a whole as sources, since most, if not virtually all of the commentary has been in the Philippine blogosphere, and since the majority of the blogs involved are from prominent and/or influential bloggers, I think we can let this one pass. --Sky Harbor 01:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

More Wikipilipinas commentry

  • What I feared would happen...is actually happening. Some of their "top X lists" are being...vandalized by a couple of editors (who *should* be blocked asap but haven't been after a day now. Changing names to a bunch of unknown people (who actually have Friendster accounts, for christ's sake), marking perfectly good articles for deletion, etc. Weird thing is, a lot of the pages in their "category for deletion" don't have anything on their talk pages that says why they should be deleted. I seriously think they should strengthen their policies first before even thinking about bulking up their stuff. Shrumster 19:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • And they don't have the amount of white blood cells/recent changes patrollers yet so I guess these kiddie vandals find it easier to sneak their edits past the vandalwatchers. Shrumster 19:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • It has begun! [1] The Friendster-ification of WikiPilipinas! I guess they do have a niche after all. They'll be where we point people to to show them what happens to an online "encyclopedia" when notability is thrown out the window. :P As a side thought though, seems like a good idea for an uber-networking/personal database-type site. Just *not* an encyclopedia. Shrumster 15:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Just realized...if this is the way they're going, I wonder if they will be implementing or trashing WP:OWN? I see a lot of potential for malevolent vandalism in this case. I mean, who hasn't passed by a rather-annoying-looking Friendster/MySpace/Multiply/LJ account and wondered...what if you could just change what it says? :P Shrumster 15:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • As mentioned before, WikiPilipinas is a amalgamation of various content styles. It's not just an encyclopedia anymore. As such, I disagree with their usage of the word "encyclopedia" to describe themselves since they're not focusing on the academic properties of their content. --seav 17:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Yeah. The term "encyclopedia" promotes a particular air of...academic authority that's a bit dangerous when it's being applied to something that seeks to take one particular majority point-of-view. BTW, hope you don't mind, I mentioned you by name in the WPinas article. :P Shrumster 17:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • That exactly is my reason why I'm not taking WPinas seriously, even if it has the backing of a textbook publisher. There was no editorial oversight to speak of in the first place, policies (if there are any) are virtually ineffective, and any efforts to try cleaning up or boosting their image would be too late an action. In a word: total chaos. And they call that an "encyclopedia"? --- Tito Pao 18:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, as long as people visit the site, vandals or otherwise, they will have eyeballs to sell ads to, which, basing on their editorial policy, is probably what they are after. But, yeah, "encyclopedia" seems to be misused.--Nino Gonzales 06:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Hmm... I guess they didn't adopt WP's WP:COI policy either. Shrumster 06:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • One more red light. Their software doesn't show subsequent file uploads using the same filename. i.e. file history. I wonder if anyone over there actually knows how the GFDL works. Shrumster 07:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • LOL to the nth power. Gus Vibal is proud that WikiPilipinas currently has "33,000" articles, beating the Norwegian, Thai, and Bahasa Melayu Wikipedia editions. You know what? They actually only have 17,000+ articles currently. They're using the Total count (which includes talk pages, user pages, redirects, stub articles, etc.) not the conservative count that all Wikipedias base their size on. See this. Tsk, tsk, tsk. --seav 11:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Amen to that. I'm a bit distressed by this press release. (en.wikipilipinas.org/index.php?title=Press_Release:WikiPilipinas_continues_its_juggernaut_dominance_of_Philippine_knowledge) here. It seems like their priority seems to be along the lines of...in colloquial terms..."palakihan ng TT." :P Can't believe I actually registered (to prevent anyone from using my username and to tag images with sources). Shrumster 12:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Could anyone tag my images (like say "came from User:Howard the Duck of the English Wikipedia"? I'm too lazy to register there (I have lots of memberships already, I don't the passwords of other websites I go to :D). Thanks. --Howard the Duck 12:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Will see what I can do about it. Do you have a gallery on WP I can reference? Shrumster 13:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks (it's not even complete hehehe). You may also check out the upload log. But some of those are really simple "coloring book" images. But don't tag the logos, they're not mine. And can you at least tag images there as an IP? It'll be much easier for me. --Howard the Duck 13:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Whoops, finished with the school colors. :P Although I did attribute that they're in the public domain and that you were the one who originally uploaded them onto the en.wp. I also attributed the espana pic (they didn't copy the arch one/deleted it) and the two archdiocese maps already. Haven't done the others yet. I've been creating image categories kasi. Can't believe they haven't even ported over the GFDL/CC/etc categorization. :p Shrumster 17:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Great, tried warning someone/pointing someone towards the appropriate page to be used when copygin text from WP, my message was deleted. diff. Shrumster

DYK?

  • Just wondering, would the new article (recently expanded within the last 5 days) pass for a WP:DYK? On a less-selfish note, it'd be an interesting start for a Philippine-related DYK. On a selfish note, that'd up its pagerank. ;) No idea how the DYK system works though. Anyone? :D Shrumster 08:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
If it was a stub 5 days ago, then it's legit. --Howard the Duck 12:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Ah, might not pass. I nominated it anyway. *crosses fingers* Shrumster 17:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Yey, it made it! Shrumster 16:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiPilipinas' Bloggers Dinner

Hello, I've been invited to attend their dinner for bloggers and I'm preparing for it. I'd like to solicit all questions, clarifications, etc., especially those you haven't aired here yet. I'll collate these and try to ask them during the dinner. This way, we can minimize the topic of WikiPilipinas in the Manila Wikipedia Meet-up 2. Thanks! :-) --seav 14:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

One good topic to raise is the one that Shrumstermentioned (re uploading files): the GFDL. I'm not sure what he meant by this, but my understanding is that it looks like the moderators/organizers of WPinas barely understand the GFDL and how it works, so it might be a good idea to check how much do they really understand the GFDL. I also have issues with how they take my assertion that Wikipinas is a stub of the Wikipedia; my impression is that they (especially that anonymous guy who accused me of having a crab-mentality complex) does not even know what forking means (even though they did import a good number of articles from WP). I have more topics in mind but I'll need to organize my thoughts; since I was unable to determine when this dinner would be, I'm not sure if I can submit my other questions just in time. I'll try to get back ASAP. Thanks! --- Tito Pao 00:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok. points noted. The dinner is this Friday night. The schedule is here, not in the actual event page. :-) --seav 01:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
No problemo ;-) If and when I've come up with a more comprehensive list, I'll try getting it e-mailed to you, as well as to the others in the list. Speaking of...I now have three (3) phone numbers with me...four (4), if you'll include Sky Harbor's. I have the email addresses of some people (including a few inactive Wikipedians) but not their numbers. --- Tito Pao 02:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Yep, the GFDL question nga pala. Not sure how the question(s) should go but they have to be made aware that they need to go through the proper attribution processes and that articles and images forked over from Wikipedia should link to the history of that article/image at least. Also, their image-upload software seems to not record the different iterations of that same image name. Problem there is when derivative works are made, they often don't note down that the new image is a derivative of the older one. Shrumster 06:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh, several questions just came to mind:
  • I'm wondering if they have something along the lines of WP:COI. I mean, if they're expecting people to make Friendster-like pages, then COI is thrown out the window. But how about "encyclopedic" articles on notable/famous people/companies? Where do they draw the line to stop these companies/people from shamelessly promoting themselves through their articles?
  • I'm also curious on how they plan to handle article deletions (and images/etc). Right now, it seems like anyone can tag an article with a "Category: for deletion" which is kinda bad since there's no due process.
  • Third, just a comment. I think they should have more people working on their policies and guidelines instead of/alongside the tons of people just dunking stuff into articlespace. Right now, important topics such as requests for admin status, page protection, deletion, etc are mostly redlinks. I'm just wondering if they have any plans on expanding the number of admins (last I checked, there were four) or policymakers. Oh and along that, are they adopting the same policy-making-by-consensus gig of WP? Shrumster 07:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh, one more. First, are they aware that some of their editors are creating almost-blank articles (not even stubs) presumably to inflate the article count? I'm curious as to if they actually allow/condone/endorse this and if they don't, what their failsafe measures are to prevent this from happening. Shrumster 07:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Admin help of restoring deleted pics

Can the admins restore these: Image:Purefoods.gif, Image:NewBAP.jpg, Image:NCAA Philippines new logo.PNG and Image:Mba1.gif since they were updated not by me (hence I wasn't able to receive the warnings) but they were deleted in the wee hours of the morning when I was sleeping and I wasn't able to save them. --Howard the Duck 02:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I need the logos for the following banks restored too (I will insert fair use rationales this time):
I hope they get restored so they can return to their proper articles. --Sky Harbor 09:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Please include the following album covers to undelete. I'll put in the proper rationale when undeleted.

--bluemask (talk) 14:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Can we get an admin for this? He'd also need the filenames. Its also funny these FU people are targeting uploads by established members and not those noobs. --Howard the Duck 14:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I've restored them all. Just be sure to put in a fair use rationale, or it'll probably get deleted again. TheCoffee 15:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Mine haven't been restored yet. --Sky Harbor 23:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I can't believe the nerve of this person for nominating Image:EDSA Revolution pic1.jpg for deletion because it's insignificant? If I still can't convince him of the importance of this image (under fair-use guidelines) then I would need some help. --seav 09:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Guys, need backup on this just to add some weight. The proposed deleter seems like a deletionist with an agenda. The guys has already ignored a RfC concerning his constant image-deletion rampages and seems to have been the subject of a recent RfA. Seems like me might need to pull off a mini-EDSA of our own. Shrumster 20:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I was involved with Abu Badali before on images concerning the LRT; I (and a few other concerned users) had to give very convincing arguments to avert deletion for all fair-use LRT pics. The transcript of what conspired then can be found here. May I note that three images were still deleted even after Mithril Cloud added fair use rationales (although I don't know if it was by the same user). --Sky Harbor 22:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I don;t get it, if it is impossible to have a free replacement, fair use rationales should be enough. --Howard the Duck 02:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Images under IFD that are significant to their contexts

The following three images are under IFD which to me (and possibly to you too) are significant:

All were nominated on the same date by the same person. Their fair use rationales seem valid, and I believe they're all important in the contexts of their articles. What do you all think? (By the way, may I please have an admin restore the five bank logos I mentioned above?) --Sky Harbor 04:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Definitely important. I suggest we start looking around and re-tagging our historic images with the historic image template. I have a feeling that's what caught his attention in the first place, that some of the original images used the generic "fair use" tag. Shrumster 09:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
the nominator is probably a nazi =/ who doesnt understand the significance of our edsa revolt †Bloodpack† 05:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I had no idea that was on the back of the 200 peso bill. Just checked it right now...it IS! :) Now I've gotta get a scan of this and post it right beside the image. In fact, shouldn't the stuff on the back of bills be appropriate with whatever thing they're taken from? Definitely adds to the notability of whatever that thing is. Shrumster 09:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

This rampage has to stop, if this guy bulldoze his way through us he'll definitely do this to other countries. I suggest sending him back to where he came from. Wikipedia:Requests for comment, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. WE WILL NOT BE INTIMIDATED BY THIS! (Note: this is the second time I used all-caps in Wiki, I hope there is no third).--Lenticel (talk) 09:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Here you are: Image:Php bill 200 back.jpg. --Sky Harbor 11:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Cool! Thanks! Shrumster 11:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm thinking though. Kahit ano mangyari, bayaan na lang natin. Sayang lang oras natin kung papatulan natin yang mga ganyan. Pwede naman ibalik yung mga litrato nga mey mas-angkop na mga rasyonal na hindi makakaakit ng pansin sa mga katulad niyang mga mambubura. Might be better for us to refocus our energies on working on the betterment of articles instead of fighting battles that the general public, who WP is really for, won't really see anyway. But then again, in my short lifetime as a Wikieditor, I've become extremely jaded with their lawyeristic processes especially when dealing with editors with conflicting agendas. I just hope that the results of these IfDs don't discourage any current editors/potential editors within our Wikimmunity. Shrumster 11:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Ilagay na lang yan sa wikipilipinas nang sila ang makasuhan >:p --Howard the Duck 12:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I apologize for my outburst earlier. Tama ka Shrumster, antayin na lang natin ang resulta. Me araw din ang mga yan. My outburst gave some positive things though. It gave me enough energy to create an image quickly, (but not pretty enough)--Lenticel (talk) 13:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

What if

We all take a leave of absence from WP if all 3 are deleted? --Howard the Duck 07:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Gave him/her an invitation to air his side here, hopefully he'll reply here soon.--Lenticel (talk) 10:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

He has demonstrated unwillingness to deal with others in the past (for which he was "counselled" by Arbcom). I just hope that the closing admin will be of sound mind and fair judgement. Howard's suggestion doesn't seem bad to me. I've recently been hitting some "walls" while editing WP...some of the pitfalls with being an "expert" having to defend edits from "non-experts." Nakakaburat these days. Not sure about the rest of you but I'm willing to take a LoA as I'm almost done with my current pet article anyway. I hate Wikibureaucracy. :( Shrumster 15:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Lol, just realized...we can always turn to Wikipilipinas. :)) Sure, it doesn't have WP's oversight, but if all of us combine our wikiality, I'm sure the articles we choose to deal with will be brought up to at least Wikipedia standards. Just a failsafe measure. Shrumster 17:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


Hi, everybody. Lenticel invited me to comment on this thread. To quickly respond to some of the points above (and elsewhere), I have nothing against the Philippines. I do image clean up on Wikipedia, and constantly I'm accused of targeting some people or some subject. For instance, in other occasions I have been accused of targeting anti-palestine images, Israely images, "skin" images (semi-naked woman), startrek images, soap-opera images, Michael Jordan images.... the point is, I'm not targeting any subject. But as I browse through linked articles, it's expectable that I run through images of related subjects in a short time frame. That's what happened with the Philippines images (and all the other examples).

As explained in the ifds, the criteria for keeping theses images on Wikipedia is our policy. It's not a vote, and it's also not an editorial decision. That is to say that it's not only about either or not the article's authors wish to use the image. Just like no editor can put POV or original research in articles, or just like we can't add unsourced defamatory information on biographies, we can't use non-free images that do not conform to our policy on non-free content.

A relevant and usually misunderstood point about our policy on non-free content is that it's more strict than fair use law. That is, not everything that's legal to use is acceptable in Wikipedia. That's because our goal is to build a freely available encyclopedia (free as in "freedom", and not as in "free beer").

Wikipedia accepts non-free content in very few circumstances, only in cases where it's really difficult to discuss the topic in question without one illustration, and no free illustration can be created to fulfill the purpose. Yes, 90% of the non-free material used on Wikipedia does not fulfill this criteria. And a ton of new infringing images are uploaded daily. But the clean up is going on. As long as we still have volunteers...

The Philippines's images I nominated for deletions failed in that they were not necessary to the understanding of the article they were used in. This is not to say that the images illustrate unimportant events. This is to say the articles discussing these important events can be perfectly understood without those images.

Do the images improve the articles? Probably. But that's enough of a reason for using a non-free image in the Free Encyclopedia. And our policy reflects that.

As a last point, I believe we all should keep the WP:NPA's nutshell in mind: "Comment on content, not on the contributor.". Calling me a "nazi" doesn't help anything. And pointing out that I had an RFC and an Arb case against me may be unnecessarily inflammatory. I have no shame of the Arb case against me. After almost one year of unhappy users attacking me on the RFC and the Arb case, many of them calling for a full-ban on me, the case was closed without any sanctions on me. I was only counseled to be more patient and diplomatic with users like you all, that question my tagging of images. And that's what I'm trying to do here.

So, I hope you all understand that this isn't personal. And I also hope you understand that Wikipedia is very strict in it's allowance of non-free content.

If any of you have any more doubts, just drop me a gentle notice on my talk page. I'll be glad to ask. Best regards, --Abu badali (talk) 22:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

as per WP:CIVIL, please accept my apology for using that unnecessary remark (nazi) †Bloodpack† 23:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Sure! --Abu badali (talk) 23:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
At the end of the day, it's not your interpretation that matters, it's how the closing admin will look it at it. S/he'll also take into account the possibility on acquiring free alternatives, since an article of such importance certainly needs a photograph to illustrate what happened. --Howard the Duck 00:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
You said "...an article of such importance certainly needs a photograph to illustrate what happened"... I believe this is the source of the misunderstanding that led to some of you taking offense with the nominations. Either or not and article needs a photograph to illustrate some event has nothing to do with the importance of the event. That's what I tried to explain (in bold letters) above. --Abu badali (talk) 17:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

A thought

I've been checking out the policy pages and various talk pages about this contentious topic of keeping/deleting many images that included under the claim of fair-use. E.g., see WP:NONFREE, WP:FUC, and Wikipedia talk:Publicity photos (this latter page is very, very enlightening). I actually get the point of Abu badali and other deletionists. But I disagree on their manner of strictness. Actually, I disagree on Wikipedia's policy of strictness on fair use that is more strict than is required by U.S. copyright law. I view Wikipedia as an encyclopedia first and as a repository of freely-licensed knowledge second. As long as any non-free image can be added to Wikipedia's articles reasonably under fair use, I would press for their inclusion. While these images can't be used by downstream users (unless they can prove that their use is fair use too, or they manage to get a license/permission from the copyright holder), if including them can enhance Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, then why not include them? After all, I believe that at least 90% of the use of Wikipedia content will come from actually viewing Wikipedia on the Web. --seav 18:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

It's because they eventually want the option to sell this stuff on a CD/DVD or something like that. That's why they don't like "wikipedia-only" licenses or "permission by author to post image on wikipedia" licenses. I'm actually running into a lot of fair-use problems with images for one of my other thrusts (besides biological articles) on WP, which is Warhammer 40,000. As a miniatures game where the minis are sculpted and sold by their parent company, Games Workshop, it is therefore impossible to have a free image of anything depicting their work. They have a very detailed disclaimer on their website about their intellectual property and even if you just make a drawing of one of the minis, they still assert ownership to the copyright of the image in the drawing. Messy stuff like that. Having said all that though, these images we are dealing with aren't mere images that are owned by a particular company to sell for profit; they're significant historic images that free or non-free, have been reprinted in countless magazines, newspapers, coffee table and history books. For Wikipedia not to have such pics even though it legally *can* would just be...petty and legalistic. As you guys might have already noticed, for a Filipino editor I have very few edits to Philippine-related articles. It's not that I try to stay away from them or anything, I just don't find myself attracted to anything connected to our country on WP. But I do recognize the importance and significance of these images in portraying the event that they are about, as important as having the copyrighted box art for an article about a video game or a logo of a company that an article is about. Shrumster 19:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Contacting the original photographers

For the EDSA Revolution pic taken by Joey de Vera, maybe we can try contacting him? There are contact details for a certain Joey de Vera here. If he's our guy, maybe he can allow a cropped/low-res version of his EDSA photos under a CC-BY(-ND/-SA) license? --seav 18:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

That would be the best possible solution! Please, make sure to read WP:COPYREQ to avoid very common mistakes in requesting for permissions (like requesting a unacceptable license) and for instructions on how to forward the licensing to a Wikimedia e-mail address that will record the licensing.
I have tried requesting free licensing of images some times with some success. But I know that User:Videmus Omnia is an expert on that (see his gallery here.) You may want to contact him for that. --Abu badali (talk) 21:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

No and just no. That's the easy way out seav. Fair use is fair use. The world protects originality, creativity, and inventiveness with the concept of copyright. But the world also promotes education, understanding, and wisdom. All copyrighted works will eventually be incorporated into the realm of study, and fair use allows that. Fair use meaning a property that is not free can be used by other people other than the owner if it is fair. Education is the basic right of people.

And Wikipedia's policy of strict fair-use interpretation for commercial purpose is hypocritical. The free encyclopedia under its name means no one needs to pay to be able to read the stuff in Wikipedia. It doesn't mean that the stuff in Wikipedia needs to be free!, images included. WIKIPEDIA IS ABOUT EDUCATION FOR FREE, not what is the stuff of Education being free. Berserkerz Crit 14:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Please brush up on your IP knowledge

Everyone, please brush up on your intellectual property knowledge especially on Fair use. We are not lawyers but some of your comments are not helping. Note that infringing use of a photo or illustration to depict or illustrate something is unlikely to be declared fair use. This means that you cannot use a copyrighted painting of a rose to illustrate an article on roses. But if you're using that copyrighted painting to illustrate the painter's technique or to talk about the painting itself, these infringing uses are likely to be considered fair use by courts.

In Wikipedia, we can't use just any copyrighted photo to illustrate or depict events. These photos have to be highly significant for them to be included in their corresponding articles. Significance is what we're arguing for. --seav 04:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Uhhh which is what I'm fighting for. I even changed the Significance rationale under the first IfD pic to better illustrate that point. I know fair use images are not for mere identification. That is why I find the IfD laughable and a farce. Of all the fair use images in Wikipedia those three would be one of the last that would not add encyclopedic and educational content to the articles. Berserkerz Crit 10:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
It should be noted though that the significance (or notability) of something is still subjective. Remember the AFD on Quezon Avenue MRT Station? However, all of the above comments are true that we have to understand and discern properly fair use doctrine (both U.S. and Philippine) so we can avoid these conflicts. --Sky Harbor 11:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

IFDs over

The IFDs for the three images are over guys. Image:Shot_Dead_on_Arrival.JPG and Image:EDSA_Revolution_pic1.jpg were kept while Image:Sin2001.jpg was deleted. I guess it was an ok result as the last one still remains in recent memory (6 years). Hehe, some of us may even actually have a low-res version of that very scene (I believe I have it on DV-8 tape. Now if only I had a working player...:()so it's easier to find an alternative to that one. Glad the others were kept as being around 20 years old and before the digital revolution, pics of those are impossibly hard to come by. Shrumster 11:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey why don't we make a GA or FA out of Ninoy or EDSA I then tell the nominator that they passed WITH the help of the Images listed on IfD. That way we could do something positive and release some steam at the same time Para sa mga mainit pa rin ang ulo sa nangyari". --Lenticel (talk) 14:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

EDSA would be my vote for the first one (although both would be excellent). I mean, as an event that put the country on the modern world map, it definitely deserves a FA treatment. Shrumster 19:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
And since there are more than a dozen books written about EDSA, references should not be hard to come by ;-) --- Tito Pao 20:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Second Meetup roll call

The roll call for the second meetup is now available! It can be found here. Sadly, I cannot go. --Sky Harbor 00:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Huh? You cannot not go. Lol. --seav 06:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, I will be competing in a debate competition. What can I do? --Sky Harbor 11:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

What time does your debate end? Perhaps we could schedule the WMPH discussions when you are free. Btw, I started the following threads in the WikiPilipinas forum:

I won't be done until the evening, if I'm correct. --Sky Harbor 11:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

NOTE ON LOCATION: According to Wikiboy, this meetup has been confirmed per the details of this message left on the WikiPilipinas/Filipiniana.net forum:

Hi Nino and Philippine Wikipedians,
As confirmed by Mr. Vibal, WikiPilipinas will be sponsoring the Meet-up as soon the organizing committee confirmed the venue.
At present, function rooms at World Trade were already booked during the event so the committee is looking forward for Makati Skyline restaurant at the 2nd floor of World Trade Center as the second option. (will be posting once confirmed)
According to the organizer, you guys will be booked at lunch time and proceed with the meeting there. Just inform us if you guys wants to meet with us after your group's meeting.
Btw, do you have the head counts?, so we can forward the info to the organizer.
tnx,
Wikiboy

So far, only six are confirmed to attend the second meetup. However, given the circumstances, meetup times will be shifted upwards to possibly around 12-1 pm. If anyone can, please do announce the meetup to all other Wikimedia projects to see if anyone else is interested. --Sky Harbor 10:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Naku baka nagsisimba kami sa time na yan. I might not be able to go there at that time.--Lenticel (talk) 06:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Whoever can come, should come. If you can't make it on time, try to come there; it's likely that the meeting will last several hours. Also, can somebody collect mobile numbers through the "E-mail this user" link? I vote for Tito Pao! --seav 10:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
What the...what did I miss here =P Oh, okay, I got it...so you want me to act as---how do I put it---the interim secretary of our group? ;-) --- Tito Pao 19:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
If that's how you want to put it, sure. I motion to elect you are interim secretary and Seav as treasurer (of course, I'm just kidding). If you need any WMPH-related stuff during the course of the meetup, feel free to contact me. --Sky Harbor 14:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Are we gonna discuss everything there? I believe some wikipedians have reservations in participating due to a possible conflict of wikipilipinas with wikipedia... --Exec8 18:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Re phone numbers per seav, I've re-enabled my "Email this user" link, so feel free to send me a message in case you don't know (yet) my e-mail addy. I'll also try to reply ASAP with my own number, just in case. If your email addy is in Google, I'll also try to set up a Google Doc so that the others can have access to that list. --- Tito Pao 23:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I am bit concerned about attendance though: only six people are attending this meetup. If people will not attend because of their own personal qualms with WikiPilipinas (I have reservations myself, but I'm willing to set them aside), then something must be terribly wrong. --Sky Harbor 23:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Let me be honest about this: I'm also thinking of that, too. And since it'll be their event that we are being invited to, I can expect that they've prepped up for the meeting (meaning, they've prepared answers to some questions as well). I'm not bothered by that anyway because, come to think of it, with or without WPinas, we're supposed to have a second meeting anyway, right? They weren't part of the original agend, but because of the recent developments we decided to include it as well. Just my thoughts.... --- Tito Pao 00:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, what can we do? WikiPilipinas just came out of the blue, and we can't do anything about that. But it shouldn't derail the grand plans this community has for the betterment of not only Wikipedia but also Philippine education (ehem...more contributors to Wikibooks to compete with Philippine textbook publishers! :D). --Sky Harbor 01:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Exactly, well said. That's why I'm also preparing as well >;) --- Tito Pao 02:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Would one of you guys want to prepare a presentation on Wikipedia projects? If you read Vibal's reply to the article I wrote, it would seem that there is still some misconceptions... btw, I have emailed my number. I'll probably be there from morning to buy books.--Nino Gonzales 05:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Re phone numbers: I've received two numbers so far. Actually, I have three, because I already have Sky Harbor's number long ago. How about the others? I'll disseminate the list on Friday at the earliest, Saturday evening at the latest. Thanks. --- Tito Pao 18:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I have some phone numbers here from those who attended the Manila 1 meet-up that was given by Exec8. I will e-mail it to you in a few minutes. --Jojit fb 10:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

ANNOUNCEMENT: The venue given to us is no longer the Skyline restaurant at the 2nd floor of the WTC but rather at the Marina restaurant further across the street (where the Wensha Spa is). See this. --seav 05:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that and changed the information in the Manila 2 meet-up page. BTW, who will be our contact there from WikiPilipinas? --Jojit fb 10:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Why?

I have some stupid questions, which have probably been answered at some point in the discussions here and during the first meet-up. I think I better ask them now than during the meet-up. Other people will probably be asking the same questions.

  • What is the mission/vision of WMPH?
  • Why do we need WMPH to reach this vision?
  • Why do we need a legal entity (WMPH with its by-laws, officers, SEC registration, etc) to achieve this vision?

(Let me also act as the devil’s advocate here) I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with this effort; it is just that creating and maintaining a foundation entails a lot of time and effort. I think it would be best to make sure we know where we are aiming for before we invest part of our lives in this. My assumption in planning to support WMPH is that it will follow the mission statement of Wikimedia Foundation:

In my opinion, taking into consideration our situation here in the Philippines, “empowering and engaging people to create educational content” means educating as many people as possible on why they should and how they could contribute content in Wikipedia. As you may know in a proposal I had (I think a year ago), I think the fastest way to do this is to work with educational institutions or individual teachers to use contribution to Wikipedia (not only reading Wikipedia) to educate their students, as has been done in other parts of the world. I guess the WMPH legal entity would help in formally approaching schools and if ever we get to the point of getting donations (you can use a nice letter and a smile (or good contacts) for approaching schools, but a legal entity is probably needed (I’m not a lawyer) for any financial transaction). Which brings me to the section below. Perhaps we could figure out a win-win collaboration with WikiPhilippines to help us achieve our mission and help them achieve their mission as well.--Nino Gonzales 05:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

How do we collaborate with Wpinas?

Here’s how I see it. However passionate we are about Wikipedia, all of us are volunteers with full-time jobs (or schoolwork). Wpinas, however, will (most likely) monetize the eventual eyeballs on their site. This is their full time job. And being led by Gus Vibal, who is apparently connected with Vibal publishers, one of the largest textbook publishers in this country, Wpinas has existing connections with educational institutions, the most important thing you need to make something happen in this country. Perhaps we could work out a collaboration to help all of us come closer to our visions. If you really want to set up a foundation, I suggest we offer to make Vibal one of the board of directors (I know of two other industry leaders who are passionate about Wiki and education. One is Tech entrepreneur and the other has been leading educational institutions for quite some time). In my opinion, however, we could promote Wikipedia for education (if this is what we want to achieve) without a legal entity. An informal thing would take less work and would probably serve the same purpose. But that’s just me.--Nino Gonzales 05:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I have actually been thinking along the same lines as well. Right now, I don't see any urgent need to put up a foundation especially since most of us have no experience doing so. I eventually think that there will be a foundation but not right now. I particularly want to explore possible collaboration options with Filipiniana.net. I think this should be one of the major topics of the meet-up. --seav 06:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, similar sentiment here. While a foundation would be great, I honestly think we need more people. i.e. we need to mentor/train more Filipino Wikipedians in the art of...well, building an encyclopedia. The sudden appearance of WPinas may be a blessing in disguise as the "pinoy pop-culture" and "chismis"-oriented ones will be attracted there while (I hope) the serious editors will stick around here. Honestly, I'm not sure WPinas will really want anything to do with us (except pirate us) as Wikipedians, as they do seem to be headed for the profit direction. Shrumster 06:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't know anymore; are you implying that WMPH as it stands is not viable? --Sky Harbor 07:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, we did get to have the AoI approved so that counts for something. But I guess I don't think that just because there is actually an existing foundation that we can advance Wikimedia's vision in the Philippines at a level of activity better than we're doing now. Some of the more important things I think--like producing high-quality encyclopedic content (and textbooks, etc.)--can be done without any foundation. We need to prove first that Filipino Wikimedia volunteers (not just on the English Wikipedia) can collaborate on building Wikimedia projects online before we go publicizing and promoting offline. --seav 07:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure it is viable. But I don't think it is a question of viability. If we are to start a foundation, it will probably be you, Sky Harbor, being the most passionate about this, who will do most of the work. But think, what will bring us closer to our goals faster: using your time with the bureaucracy of starting a foundation or using that same amount of time to write and edit Wikipedia? I'm currently involved with an NGO and, man, it requires a lot of work, and I don't even handle the foundation stuff. But that's just my opinion, and it's your time. --Nino Gonzales 04:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Frankly, I'm just a kid. But still, I do agree that we can organize, just at a later date. I'd rather see everything get approved first and see how well people will embrace Wikipedia, especially with "other entities" getting media exposure. --Sky Harbor 13:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

They're kidding us, right?

This may sound unbelievable, but now we have this: the Filipino Wikipedia test (or possibly more appropriately, the Taglish Wikipedia test). I thought this issue was dead long ago. --Sky Harbor 04:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought I should be happy but after reading the Asian Games article I LOLed. --Howard the Duck 05:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Pwede bang pa-delete na yan? Masakit na nga ulo ko pinapasakit pa lalo.--Lenticel (talk) 05:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Nakaka-laf nga yung mga artikel doon hehehe --Howard the Duck 05:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not part of that, but i'm supportive of having a Wikipedia in Filipino. --Scorpion prinz (Talk | contribs) 07:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I've double-checked the User Page of the user who requested for this...hindi sya Pinoy, so it's likely that he may not be that aware of Philippine language-related issues. So I'd suggest that we all provide our insights (pro and con) on the request page just in case. --- Tito Pao 08:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Lol, this is amusing. Shrumster 10:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Napa hehehe din ako :D Amusing, yeah...but shouldn't we all keep our minds open? Open to realities that indeed there is such thing as Filipino language (other than Tagalog) and that there are plenty of Filipinos out there who would write/spell "Sayans" for Science instead of "Agham" or "Syensya". Isn't Filipino alive, kicking, fluid, evolving...etc? --Weekeejames 13:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
That's the thing. Taglish is just english+tagalog. More people would spell "sayans" as science rather than sayans. Shrumster 14:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
kala ko supersayans =D †Bloodpack† 15:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
hahahaha --Howard the Duck 15:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Lol, alala ko tuloy yung Animax dub ng Initial D: 4th Stage. I guess that's the requirement for taglish WP - it has to sound like a dubbed TV show. :P Shrumster 16:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
A similar discussion 2 years ago: http://tl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Pagsalin_ng_mga_nilalaman_ng_Wikipedia_na_ito_sa_Filipino --Nino Gonzales 10:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The type of spelling used is very similar to the spelling reform proposed by a Bicolano blogger who runs a site named Filipinayzd (he is also one of the people involved in making a Bikol Wikipedia). So there is nothing "official" about it. Any effort to get Filipino a new Wikipedia should be stopped dead in its tracks, as it would be ridiculously redundant and harmful to the Tagalog Wikipedia. --Chris S. 19:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Filipinayzd's use of what is known as the fifth rule of Philippine orthography (bigkas-sulat-basa or "a word is spelled the way it is read") is valid provided that the words produced would not be of laughable character. That is why words like dyim, magasin, siyampu and kompyuter are acceptable, whereas sayans wouldn't be. Although then again, the rules are non-binding and anyone can use it as they please. --Sky Harbor 23:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Who, then, determines what is "laughable" and what is not laughable (both in local and international perspective) in an evolving and fluid language like Filipino. I beg, seriously, the answer to this question. Why can sayans for Science be unaccepted while kompyuter for computer be accepted? Nagsisisi ako kung bakit napa hehehe ako when this is, actually, a serious matter. Btw, if wikipedia can have a simple English Wikipedia apart from the [standard] English Wikipedia, why can't we have a Filipino wikipedia apart from Tagalog Wikipedia - a Filipino Wikipedia that can be understood by most, if not all, Filipinos and not just the Tagalogs? --Weekeejames 20:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Just a humorous aside. I grew up in Bulacan and Manila so I'm technically Tagalog. And I can't make heads-or-tails out of the Tagalog Wikipedia. :P Never got used to reading that Balagtas-style stuff. Tabloid-level, siguro pwede pa. :P Shrumster 21:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
As a sidenote, the rulings of the Académie française (the organization that publishes an official French dictionary) are considered advisory an not binding on either the public or the government, contrary to popular misconception about the French language. --- Tito Pao 04:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
That may be the case for certain words, but my impression is that there isn't wide acceptance and usage for many other English words. Before that happens, atrocities like "sayens" should be avoided. --Chris S. 07:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I cannot understand why Tagalog can import (and tolerate) many Spanish words into its vocabulary (like "Syensya" for Cienca among many other words, for example) when there is a legitimate Tagalog word for it (Agham) and Filipino should not import (and should not tolerate because it's an atrocity and harmful to Tagalog) English words into its vocabulary (like "sayans" for "Science"). Why do we keep judging the versatility and evolving character of the Filipino language on biased grounds? --Weekeejames 17:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Tagalog is not alone. English has done the same thing with regards to borrowings from French, Latin, Greek, and Old Norse when perfectly English words exist. Why do we say "geology" and not "earth-study?" Or why do we have two words for the same animal - canine/dog, feline/cat, bovine/cow, etc. One of the explanations is that it's more fashionable or prestigious to use a word from a different language. Another is that perhaps the word in the native language has some connotations that a new word wouldn't have. It is the same thing in Japanese and Korean - they have Chinese words. They use Chinese numbers for different items that it's reminiscent of when Filipinos use Spanish numbers for particular things as well. --Chris S. 21:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Precisely the point I am driving at - If Tagalog can do it, why can't Filipino? If it's not "laughable" for Tagalogs, why is it "laughable" for Filipino to devise its own orthography? May bias eh. Lumalabas ang imperial character ng mga taga Luzon - Manileños and Tagalogs. --Weekeejames 07:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
As for me, Tagalog has a stricter vocabulary compared to Filipino. And what I'd mostly consider as the vernacular is actually Filipino. I'd likely support the Filipino Wikipedia. Ü --Scorpion prinz (Talk | contribs) 20:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I am also for the Filipino Wikipedia. For comparison purposes, there is the simple English wikipedia apart from the English Wikipedia, and if the Filipino Wikipedia should reach more Filipinos (other than the Tagalogs), I don't see any reason why I should object. --Weekeejames 07:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Remember that Filipino was concocted by politicians with no formal linguistics training in 1987 and was defined in a memo to be the speech of Manila in 1991. Many of us spoke Tagalog long before then, did we magically start talking Filipino in 1987 or 1991? I think not. Tagalog is the broader language; it has absorbed words from various languages long before Filipino was invented. The presence of English or Spanish words in Tagalog does not change it into political invention. At its current stage, Filipino is simply another Tagalog dialect. And as such, it doesn't require another Wikipedia. It would be like making another Wikipedia specifically for American English or British English. --Chris S. 21:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
IMHO, politicians can really alter how a language is named. Hindi (India's national language) and Urdu (Pakistan's national language) for example are linguistically the same, the difference is the way they are written, Sanskrit and Arabic, respectively. Laotian and Thai languages are the same, but when you cross the Mekong river, they are referred to differently. Correct me if I'm wrong but I recall, when we talk about the Tagalog alphabet we have A, B, K, D, E, G, H... in contrast to Filipino which has A, B, C, D, E... plus Ñ and NG. The concept of developing a national language is similar to what Indonesia had done with Bahasa. Filipino is indeed an offspring of Tagalog, and the concept of developing this into a national language didn't only start in 1987. The 1935 Constitution called for the development of one from the existing national languages, which it determined to be Tagalog as having the most number of speakers, but the 1973 instituted it as Pilipino, with its evolution it then came to be known as Filipino in 1987, Filipino has a long way to go for me. --Scorpion prinz (Talk | contribs) 00:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Of course, politicians and what not can alter a language's name. But that does not change the scientific and linguistic reality. As for Tagalog's alphabet, since Filipino is Tagalog then it follows that Tagalog has the same amount of letters as Filipino has. Another way to look at it is that Tagalog has always had many letters, but during 1939(?)-1987, it was defined as having 20. Prior to the 1930s, Tagalog had a lot more letters. And yes, Filipino does have a long way to go and that's why, in its current state, it does not warrant its own Wikipedia. Perhaps in a generation or two but right now? It's nothing but standardized Tagalog. --Chris S. 01:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank God for Politics. After all, Politics is about "decision making". I believe Filipino continues to evolve and one day it will no longer be a "vernacular" , a "dialect" or too much dependent on Tagalog. I look forward to the day when Filipino vocabulary will also be rich in other indigenous languages like Cebuano, Bikolano, Hilgaynon, etc. and not just Spanish and English and even more flexible in its orthography. The Filipino language should be a factor of national unity. --Weekeejames 07:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
This may add some helpful insights, or confusion: [2] - at least he's among the constitutionalists who took part in "the making of the Filipino language" in 1987. --Scorpion prinz (Talk | contribs) 09:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

C'mon, who said that Tagalog cannot accept words of foreign origin as part of its vocabulary? Do we really believe that Tagalog is that static and unwieldy? Do we really see our respective Philippine languages (including Cebuano, Kapampangan, etc.) as like, what, Hittite, as relics of the dinosaur era that are no longer able to change and grow? Is Filipino now the only Philippine language that is allowed to evolve?

Anyway, yes, I agree, politicians (or people) can create languages. So, as for a Filipino-language Wikipedia, I'd eventually support its creation, but first, we have to define what Filipino actually is. What is its vocabulary? What is its grammar? (Judging from the Inquirer article, it can be those of any of our local languages--or even all of them, grammar and lexicon.) Once we actually know for sure what Filipino is, only then would it seem sensible to create a Filipino-language Wikipedia. Until then, we'd be wasting time and energy pushing for goals we haven't even yet clearly defined for ourselves as a Nation. --Pare Mo 16:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

And as it stands, the chairman of the KWF just recently (see Filipino language) said that Filipino is essentially Tagalog. Finally they admitted it. --Chris S. 01:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I've actually read that too. At first, we'd think that things are clearer now, but...is his statement legally binding? This is very important for those arguing for a non-Tagalog based Filipino language. --Pare Mo 06:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Being one of the framers of the constitution, his opinion - though not legally binding - of course, matters. To those who challenge the Filipino language, they should go to the Supreme Court - the interpreter of the law. There should be no arguments for a non-Tagalog based Filipino language because it is already essentially [but only initially] Tagalog (Pilipino). What we should want to see is an evolution of an infusion of the many major Philippine languages into one national language that is flexible and can be understood by most - if not all - Filipinos. Ang hirap sa atin, batas na nga...nasa konstitusyon na nga...ayaw pang ring sumunod, hindi pa rin (o sadyang ayaw lang talaga) nakaka-intindi. --Weekeejames 07:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
The constitution clearly states: "The national language of the Philippines is Filipino." Why did the Filipinos ratify the constitution in 1987 with something in it that was unclear and had not been defined [at that time] in the first place? It further says: "As it evolves, it shall be further developed and enriched on the basis of existing Philippine and other languages..." It's already pretty sensible for a Filipino wikipedia to exist as the language continues to evolve. Can't you not all see that having a Filipino wikipedia can help make the ideals and aspirations of our beloved constitution come true??? Give Filipino a chance! Give the entire Filipino people a chance and not just the Tagalogs themselves. --Weekeejames 17:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
IMHO, the Filipino language needs to die. Unity will never be achieved by arbitrarily favoring and excluding ethnic groups. But that's just my opinion. As has been stated above, Filipino is Tagalog. Why have two Wikipedias in the same languages? Nobody has been able to come up with a reasonable, scientifically-sound, clear, and unarbitrary distinction between Filipino and Tagalog. People try, but there is no clear consensus. --Chris S. 01:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
That's not really the way it works here...you see, a Visayan can grow up speaking only Tagalog (apart from English) and still identify strongly as a Visayan. Ethnicity is above language. --Pare Mo 05:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
You're right, Pare Mo. However, that's really the point here. Ignoring that small issue, I have to say that it's neither really representative of the vast majority of members of a particular Philippine ethnolinguistic group. When the Philippine government excludes, say Hiligaynon, you're essentially disenfranchising Ilonggos, as most Ilonggos speak Hiligaynons. --Chris S. 01:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

UP has a Filipino (or is it Tagalog?) dictionary, right? We can use that... --Howard the Duck 16:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I was at university library today and saw the UP Filipino dictionary; many of the English words defined were not written according to Tagalog/Filipino orthography. Some were, though. The only thing that comes to mind is "obedience," but I should've looked up sayans. ;-). --Chris S. 01:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
It's actually Diksyunaryo ng Wikang Filipino. Yes, Filipino is essentially Tagalog, as Bahasa Indonesia is a standardized dialect of the Malay language. --Scorpion prinz (Talk | contribs) 13:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Apples and oranges. Indonesia and Malay are national languages for two different countries. Furthermore, Malay and Indonesian have many differences that Filipino and Tagalog do not have. That is the case with Hindi & Urdu, Lao & Thai, Serbian & Croatian, Moldovan & Romanian, etc. --Chris S. 15:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I'd look at it this way... As 'Manang' and 'Manong' are Ilocano terms, but have already been in common use in Filipino, while in Tagalog you would use 'Ale' and 'Mama' (so does in Filipino). For the lack of a better example, the Cebuano 'bayot' is already accepted in Filipino, but Tagalog would have it as 'bakla' or 'binabae'.. Seeing this it provides sense that Filipino is an infusion of all Philippine languages that have come in common use in the vernacular. Distinctions are not clearly defined as of yet, Filipino is just stemming out from Tagalog. It will take time. I just don't want to shut the Filipino language out. --Scorpion prinz (Talk | contribs) 07:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I do really think that the problem exists because of the 'misconception' that Filipino is Tagalog. We can say that the precursor of this language was Pilipino ([from] initially and currently, essentially Tagalog), eventually it will not be the case when we ourselves start following the objectives of our law (the constitution) and start educating ourselves. --Weekeejames 13:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
In the case of Croatia, basing their newly created--through politics--national language on Serbian wasn't a problem since Croats--again, through their politicians--accepted it. The question is, however, will non-Tagalog Filipinos accept Tagalog as the basis for our national language? --Pare Mo 05:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Two words, DILA and SOLFED. --Chris S. 01:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Detailed Philippine presidential and vice-presidential election results from 1946 to 2004 province by province

Please give me the complete results of Philippine presidential and vice-presidential election results from 1946 to 2004 province by province to my e-mail or post the complete results in Wikipedia because I want to know who presidential or vice-presidential candidate won in the particular provinces from 1946 up to 2004 and I will claim to myself that I am Adam Carr Philippine version. I need for the complete results so that the Filipino people will know who presidential or vice-presidential candidate won in the particular provinces. Please understand me. --Joseph Solis in Australia 10:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)--

Where are you now!!!!!, User:Scorpion prinz, Please give me or post in Wikipedia the complete results of Philippine presidential election and vice-presidential election results with province by province breakdown from 1946 to 2004 elections to know the Filipino people who presidential candidate or vice-presidential candidate won in their province. My e-mail address is josephs_dagreat@yahoo.com if you want to give me the complete results with province by province breakdown.--Joseph Solis in Australia 09:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Scorpion prinz is currently out of town. Please be patient. If I remember correctly, he has photocopies of many documents, some written in Spanish. It will take a long time to convert them into digital form (even just images) and Scorpion prinz is not a full-time Wikipedia volunteer. --seav 01:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
My purpose as I said is that I want that Filipino people will know the complete results of Philippine presidential and vice-presidential election results from 1946 to 2004 province by province breakdown. To my 5-year research, The Philippine election data is the most uncomprehensive election data in the world because of lack of archiving the past election results from the COMELEC and NAMFREL via Internet whereas the Australian, Mexican, United States election data is the most comprehensive election data in the world.--Joseph Solis in Australia 09:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Number 2, COMELEC is tainted in controversies such as annulling the automated machine contract between COMELEC and Mega Pacific eSolutions Inc because of bidding irregularities. COMELEC also is tainted in massive fraud controversies because of conversation between Virgilio Garcilliano and President Arroyo that Arroyo cheated the presidential election of 2004 to win. That is the cause why the Philippine election is still in manual counting and that is the cause also why COMELEC cannot released the complete results with province by province breakdown from Presidential to Senatorial elections and barangay by barangay breakdown Presidential to Municipal councilors elections.--Joseph Solis in Australia 09:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I understand your concerns, but demanding for the results won't magically improve elections in the Philippines. Please be patient. But if you really, really want the results now how about trying to contact PCIJ (http://www.pcij.org)? They have done a lot of election analyses over the past two decades and I bet that they have the same data that Scorpion prinz has. It's quite possible that they already have this data in electronic form. --seav 13:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Fernando Gago... and some suggestions

....Whoa. Uthanc 11:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

You can say that again. =) -- • Kurt Guirnela • ‡ Talk 12:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
There could be an article on Philippine slang (through the years?) if there isn't already, but it would really need valid references. Uthanc 12:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Found this Copongcopongs Pinoy Slang Dictionary. It could be source for starters. -- • Kurt Guirnela • ‡ Talk 12:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Can't promise I'll work on that in the future, sorry (occupied with other stuff, including real life) though I may try. Another note:

The Lupin TV series article could use comparisions to Lupin III and the original French Arsène Lupin stories (I'd be surprised if they really had a lot in common). I don't know any other ones than the name Lupin and the fact that they're all about thieves, as I haven't watched it. Uthanc 16:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


As for slang dictionaries, Dr. R. David Zorc's Tagalog Slang Dictionary is the most reliable on the subject, afaict. Shows etymology. --Chris S. —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 22:08, August 26, 2007 (UTC).

They did it again!!! =)

From the Philippine Madrigal Singers' Friendster Profile: http://profiles.friendster.com/3964570

"The Philippine Madrigal Singers won the 2007 European Grand Prix of Choral Music. The first and only choir in the world to win this most prestigious competition twice. Thank you so much for the support and prayers! Mabuhay ang Korong Pilipino!"

Another reason to be proud of our country!!! :D

I also got this information from a very reliable source (the Madz's current coutourier and the brother of one of the altos), but the official contest website hasn't updated yet because...well, I got wind of the news at around 6 in the morning, which is late night in Italy, so I guess their webmaster might still be sleeping :P So as soon as it gets officially published, I'll update the Madz's article, as well as that of the European Grand Prix for Choral Singing. --- Tito Pao 01:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

So...? --Howard the Duck 03:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
It's on the Inquirer website. If you can get there in time, you can make habol and add it in. --Sky Harbor 14:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
This should have been included in GMA's sona... --Howard the Duck 14:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Already updated. Besides, what does a philistine like GMA know about culture anyway? She picked small fry in her SONA. --- Tito Pao 15:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
She did announce some Filipino achievements you've never heard of? LOL --Howard the Duck 00:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Not unless you have an erratic schedule like mine...the only news I'd ever get to watch is the morning news (from Dos and Siete)...if and when I ever get to see it at the office pantry. Lately, I also don't get to touch a newspaper, so I'm almost depenent on news websites (both local and foreign) =P --- Tito Pao 00:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Requested move:

99.5 HiT FM -> 99.5 Hit FM to conform with WP:MOS. --Howard the Duck 13:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Weird. I speedied the redirect to make way for the move but it was removed. I guess someone's contesting the suggested move? Or did the guy just misunderstand what we were trying to do? Shrumster 06:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
We need a Pinoy admin to do the dirty work... --Howard the Duck 02:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Philippine history articles

I wish Ambeth Ocampo was a Wikipedian. Anyway, I noticed some articles have Zaide as their primary source. Isn't his work outdated in terms of viewpoint and scholarship? Uthanc 21:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi! I've read all of Ambeth Ocampo's books...or, at least, most of it. He uses Zaide not as the only reference but as one of his many references. This means that he also has Agoncillo and Constantino and a slew of other authors that not many Filipinos must have heard of. In addition, by virtue of his experience and his position, he has access to a lot of sources that would otherwise be inaccessible to the general public (among other things, he was granted access to the original manuscript of the Noli and the Fili, which is kept under lock and key at the vaults of the National Library/National Archive, the permission of this is extremely difficult to obtain). What Ambeth Ocampo reiterates over and over again is that the original (or primacy) sources itself, naturally, cannot be updated (do you think that the Katipuneros will rise from the grave to re-update their writings? ;) --- Tito Pao 21:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Non-WP related but personally, they should scan/make digtal copies and have them accessible on the library's website or something. Would be much, much easier for pseudo-researchers like WPedians and other students/etc. What's the "Statute of Limitations" for Phil copyright stuff anyway? (And does that even apply since these were written before we actually had a country?) Shrumster 06:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Try filipiniana.org. You will find a lot there. But we're supposed to use secondary and tertiary sources in Wikipedia, if I remember correctly. --Nino Gonzales 04:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
You can actually use any source, primary or not, as long as you attribute it. --seav 00:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Cool: Semapedia

http://www.semapedia.org/ --Nino Gonzales 06:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

One day to go...

...so I have the following peepz' numbers on my email inbox:

And, of course, I have Sky Harbor's number as well (but you should all be able to find that information as well =P I also have Scorpion prinz's email address, but not his number...so if I have to send out something, I'd like to include him as well.

I'd like to first apologize for not having updated myself lately: my new work sked begins this week and, while I still have Sundays and Mondays off, my work hours were moved a few hours early, so that would mean I leave for work when most of you are sleeping or have just turned off their TV sets after catching up on Bandila or 24 Oras; I'm taking my lunch while most of you are just having your breakfast; and I'm getting prepped up for bedtime when most of you are having merienda. I'm still having migraines since this is the first week of my new sked =P

Per seav, the new venue will be at the Marina Restaurant near Wensha Spa. The date and time will be this Sunday, Sept. 2 2007, at around lunchtime.

Nino is proposing something for the meet-up---in particular, he thinks that those who wants to come to the meet-up should...well, meet up first before proceeding to the Marina resto. I'll be e-mailing the details to the others and, as soon as I can, text everyone about this proposal. I'll be prioritizing those I've named above. If you want to be included in my mailing list, please let me know ASAP. My "Email this user]] link is still open for you to use, so feel toxic to send me a note.

One final note: I'll be copying this post to the other post in the Meet-up page, so feel free to respond to either thread. Thanks --- Tito Pao 18:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick note. Been to the Blogger's Dinner and talked to Wikiboy about the arrangement for the lunch Meet-up. They're actually quite busy with the Book Fair (especially since it's a weekend) and they probably won't meet us face-to-face to talk about things. It's basically just us and a FilNet representative who will foot the lunch bill. Anyway, I got Wikiboy's contact number in case we guys really need to have a dialogue with the FilNet/WikiPinas people. --seav 00:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Ganon? Okay, I'll be sending out an email to you that contains everyone's numbers, with a CC to the others (including Sky Harbor. I'll try to update myself after the shift (just a little after lunchtime), we all really need to discuss plans for tomorrow. If ever, please pass word that I will be online tonight and, probably, a little bit between lunchtime and before dusk, so that we can all discuss how to go about this since hindi rin lang pala matutuloy yung meet-up with the WPinas key people. Thanks. --- Tito Pao 02:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Guys a little off topic lang ha pero pwede ba sa World Trade tayo magkita? Kasi doon papunta yung pamilya ko at hindi ko alam ang lugar. Lenticel (talk) 09:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Biglang nawala tong post ko, hindi alam kung bakit--Lenticel (talk) 09:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm actually going to the bookfair first thing in the morning since I wasn't able to make it in the past few days (because of my !%@?!ing schedule (grrr...), so either way I would still be there. How about the others? --- Tito Pao 11:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Magsisimba ako sa Day by Day (CCP) so around 12 ako makakapunta.Lenticel (talk) 12:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Paul nico acode

Could someone familiar with your national language please check Paul nico acode and determine if the article is a candidate for speedy deletion (non-notable, attack etc)? Thanks, WWGB 09:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete as an attack page and as a WP:BIO violation. --Howard the Duck 09:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete the pics too. --Howard the Duck 09:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia vs. WikiPilipinas Debate in Manila Bulletin

Check out the Technews section of today's (Sep 3) edition. I've been interviewed by Ms. Annalyn Jusay regarding WikiPilipinas and Wikipedia. It doesn't seem to be online yet, so try to get the actual paper in the meantime. :-) --seav 08:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Enjoy... http://www.mb.com.ph/issues/2007/09/03/TECH20070903102006.html --Nino Gonzales 07:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia and WikiPilipinas By ISAGANI CRUZ, The Philippine Star

Exec8 19:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Next steps for Tambayan Philippines

Thanks to the following people for attending the Manila Wikipedia Meetup II cum Wikipedia-WikiPilipinas dialogue:

Thanks to Mr. Gus Vibal for the lunch, to Wikiboy for the arrangements, and to the rest of the Filipiniana.net/WikiPilipinas team. --seav 02:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

On WikiPilipinas

can somebody provide details of the discussions?

I hope the others can help me out...I definitely may have misheard/missed some points. --- Tito Pao 04:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiPilipinas views itself as an aggregator of user-contributed knowledege. The user-contributed knowledge need not be anything that can be researched in an encyclopedia or verified by academic sources. The basic idea is that every user has their own set of knowledge that they can contribute, and by writing these down on WikiPilipinas they can formalize their knowledge in writing. In addition, because the site is a wiki other users will be able to refine the contents by supporting or contradicting a particular article. Bias is a given on the premise that the mere act of writing something indicates a point of view.

Because of these premises, WikiPilipinas does not intend to become a clone of the Wikipedia by providing additional content. (To use an example, it includes contents that might be construed as original research or deletable on the Wikipedia). In other words, it does not intend to become an encyclopedia; WikiPilipinas's policies are very, very basic unlike WP policies in its present forms. They admit that at one point in time, its policies will evolve (much like Wikipedia in its seminal stages), although they are clear on a few things (for example, content that would be construed illegal will automatically be deleted.) Whatever new policies it requires remain to be seen in the near future.

With regard to contents that are derived from the core Wikipedia site (i.e. English Wikipedia site), WikiPilipinas acknowledges that some articles were derived from Wikipedia. To this end, they are making efforts to include links to the original article/s on the Wikipedia, in conformance to the terms of the GFDL. Efforts will also be made to incorporate links to the original histories of each articles. They will also create their own images and will not use Wikipedia's maps (in particular, they're going to use maps that were produced in many Vibal-produced textbooks).

(Note: I know there's a lot of points I missed out on that one...see what I mean? =P --- Tito Pao 04:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC))

On Wikipedia

During the meeting we have identified three objectives that the Pinoy English Wikipedia community should spearhead:

  1. Have a legal front for contact Philippine media for copyright assertions and Philippine knowledge institutions for data gathering.
  2. Have a more concerted effort in improving Philippine-related articles in the English Wikipedia.
  3. Have publicity drives to promote Wikimedia content among educational institutions in the Philippines

Objectives #1 and #3 require that we have Wikimedia Philippines Foundation, Inc. and should involve the other Pinoy Wikipedia communities in other Wikimedia projects. Objective #2 does not need a foundation and concerns only the Pinoy English Wikipedia community. The Meetup participants agreed that we should concentrate on #2 primarily while there is no Foundation yet. As for the Foundation, we decided that the first step is to get 20 committed members (from across the Wikimedia community) and that we need a rough timetable or road-map so that we have a direction or goal to look up to. Unfortunately, we haven't hashed out any plans yet.

--seav 02:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Objective #2

Right now, the Tambayan is just that: a tambayan. We all have our own pet projects and we basically just go to the Tambayan to check what others are doing, to get a bit of Wikinews, and to occasionally get some support for some cause.

There is currently no concerted effort within the Pinoy English Wikipedia community to improve Philippine-related articles in the English Wikipedia. There was a drive before to promote three articles to Featured status by the end of 2005 but after the vote that selected Manila, José Rizal, and Boracay for the process, things sort of petered out. (Next time, people who voiced their support should have committed to help with those articles.) Let's plan to revive such community efforts as a complement to our pet projects.

What are some activities as a community that we can do? Here are some examples (all of which are micro-WikiProjects):

  • Create stub/start-level articles for 50% of all Philippine-related requested articles that have been requested as of a cut-off date.
  • Assess and categorize all geographical and biographical articles that are existing as of a cut-off date.
  • Promote to B-level status all articles about National Artists.
  • Translate all existing FA Philippine-related articles to the Tagalog Wikipedia.

We can have 1,2,3 or more of these activities every 1,2,3 or more months or in any manner that the community decides. Which community activities to be done for each time period can be decided by an elected council or by consensus of the community. And individual people can nominate activities to be done for future time periods.

Aside from these temporal community activities, let's activate others that should be done all-year-round. Some examples:

  • Maintain a (bi-)weekly e-mail newsletter talking about Tambayan activities and micro-WikiProject statuses and choice snippets from the Wikipedia Signpost and other official Wikipedia pages. This newsletter should be given to all Wikipedians in the Tambayan roster.
  • Welcome drive for new Pinoy Wikipedians encouraging them to join the Tambayan.
  • Main Tambayan page maintenance
  • Portal:Philippines maintenance

--seav 02:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions:

  • Since our interests and skills are too varied and Philippine subjects are too broad, we could emulate Wikipilinas in having its users assigned in groups. Let's say I'll belong to a Science group, my focus would be fixing/creating Science-based Philippine articles. Although other users can help me the task would still be my responsibility. The tambayan can assign this particular group to create/expand a set number of articles for a particular month.
  • Let us cooperate with Wikipilipinas about the legal front and media contacts as they have the time and the money to actually work this out.
  • We need to recruit more active members of the fairer sex. It seems that it is mostly males that hang-out in the tambayan and those who participate in offline events, hindi naman tayo frat.
  • We could also add a to-do lists on the Main page similar to the one found in the India regional noticeboard.
  • It is easy to start all objectives. Maintenace is the problem.

PS Sayang alang picture taking nung meetup :(--Lenticel (talk) 05:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

"We need to recruit more active members of the fairer sex. It seems that it is mostly males that hang-out in the tambayan and those who participate in offline events, hindi naman tayo frat." Amen to that! :P Shrumster 06:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I "third" the motion Alternativity 17:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Re pictures: I actually have mine, but I haven't uploaded it yet. The others brought in their camera as welll (I remember seav and Jojit asking one of the WPinas guys to take our pictures early on in the meeting). --- Tito Pao 16:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Pictures!!!

I've uploaded some of my pictures from the event. See Wikipedia:Meetup/Manila 2. I've also blogged about the event and there are more in Flickr. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seav (talk • contribs) 17:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I placed my thoughts about our meeting with Wpinas in one of your comments. I hope you don't mind my blogsquatting :) Sky Harbor--Gus Vibal had a suggestion re WMPH which I placed in my comment. http://vaes9.codedgraphic.com/posts/wikipilipinas_not_a_pedia#comment_11 --Nino Gonzales 10:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Just an extra thing

This user participates in
Tambayan Philippines.

I had some spare time. I love making userboxes. ætərnal ðrAعon → 11:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Amen to that! --Sky Harbor 11:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Should we finally elevate the Tambayan RNB as a full-fledged WikiProject? --Howard the Duck 17:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I support provided someone will unblock the project's original proponent (we all know who he is). --Sky Harbor 11:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Hahahaha... he's on the Tagalog WP, right? I'm too lazy to go there, why don't you inform him there? --Howard the Duck 12:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Hold on, what tdo you mean by full-fledged? Do projects need to be "officially recognised" or something? ætərnal ðrAعon → 02:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Not necessarily. It's just that we're still quite informal and are in the early stages of organizing into a WikiProject. --Sky Harbor 11:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I would support the move. And if you guys aren't able to, just let me know and I'll work my magic. But why do you want to unblock you-know-who? --Chris S. 22:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Prior to becoming active in Wikipedia, I saw the tambayan's argument with "him" and saw the events leading to his abandonment of the English WP. I think he was a good contributor until he fell from grace (using sock puppets). Why don't you invite him here in the tambayan to talk about these events and ask him to join us again? I just hope he's more mature now. --Lenticel (talk) 00:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Another admin blocked him for another reason... --Chris S. 01:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I'm in the dark. Was this before I became an active Wikipedian? Shrumster 06:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe he was blocked due to him posting his password for his username. For Shrumster, the exploits of He-who-must-not-be-named is found in the tambayan's archives. He was the first person to concieve the idea of the Wikiproject Philippines but things got downhill... --Lenticel (talk) 07:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Frankly or not, Emir214 (there, I named he-who-must-not-be-named) may or may not have been aware of his actions. Given that it has been well over a year since the controversy (correct me if I'm wrong), I think it's time for him to be unblocked and welcomed back to the community. I think both sides have matured to this conclusion: the former has honed his Wikipedia skills on the Tagalog Wikipedia, while the latter (as in us) have decided to organize WikiProject Philippines in an attempt to bridge the rift between both sides. --Sky Harbor 14:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
So Sky could you do the honors and invite him here? Hindi pa yata niya ako nakikilala --Lenticel (talk) 15:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I can proxy. Normally the policy calls for him to appeal his ban. --Sky Harbor 15:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Maybe you could convince him to show up and appeal for himself. PS. Does anyone notice that the talk page is way too bloated? --Lenticel (talk) 15:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it is. :P Is this thing manually archived? Shrumster 06:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Dear lord, my Tagalog reading comprehension is shot. :P Took me several minutes to just navigate around there. :P Shrumster 15:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Unblocking of Emir214

Just so everyone knows, in a comment he left on my talk page on the Tagalog Wikipedia, he is appealing his block. Hopefully he will get unblocked. Besides, a responsible Tagalog Wikipedia editor should deserve to be unblocked on the English Wikipedia, especially as a sign of goodwill. --Sky Harbor 11:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Great I hope he'll be unblocked soon. --Lenticel (talk) 12:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Request denied. The password controversy made it quite complicated to be unblocked since there is no more guarantee that said account is under his control. Per advice of the administrator denying his request, he should create a new account. --Sky Harbor 14:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I created a new account already. From now on, I shall be called (for the English Wikipedia only) User:MSHS personfellow07 (on the Tagalog Wikipedia, I am still referred to as Emir214) - MSHS personfellow07 14:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I should have suggested you get your alternate account unblocked, but oh well. That's up to you. --Sky Harbor 23:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

merging Wikipiniana and the filipino wikipedia

i know that you guys want to be independent, but maybe it is just more easier and more convenient if someone will merge the two resources

Andre boink100 13:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It should be the other way around. --Howard the Duck 14:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Technically speaking, that is not only impractical, it's infeasible. Either you order WikiPilipinas to take their servers to Florida et.al. (but then, WPinas would appear like it's Wikipedia content), or tell Wikipedia to cram its humongous data into the much smaller ISP of WikiPilipinas (Wikipedia's servers are distributed over a hundred servers in different ISPs and universities in three continents; the host of WikiPilipinas, AFAIK, is hosted by one company only.) It's like trying to cram all the animals of a zoo inside a chihuahua's doghouse. Kamusta naman yon? =P Bear in mind that WikiPilipinas is much smaller in scope than Wikipedia---it limits itself only to Philippine-related topics. And although you can see Pinoys here on the Wikipedia, we're still very much a part of the greater Wikipedia. Demanding a merge of Wikipedia and WikiPinas is being simplistic and naive, to put it mildly. --- Tito Pao 16:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Yep. As Howard and Pao have stated already, bad idea. WikiPilipinas' scope is purely Philippine-related topics while the Filipino Wikipedias (Tagalog, Cebuano, other dialects) are Wikipedia-in-another-language. So they keep Wikipedia's scope of...pretty much anything. Shrumster 07:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Oppose Merge per above. I suggest Cleanup for Wikipedia and Expand Wikipilipinas.--Lenticel (talk) 07:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Favor on Merge Wikipilipinas must be merged with Wikipedia and Wikipilipinas wants that Wikipedia in the Philippines will embarrassed and I believe that Mr. Gus Vibal of Wikipilipinas cannot surpass Jimbo Wales of Wikipedia. Go for Merge.--Joseph Solis in Australia 07:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Another point, Wikipilipinas tolerates original sources whereas Wikipedia is not and I believe also that Wikipilipinas is many hoax articles than Wikipedia for the years to come because Wikipilipinas tolerates original sources and I believe that Wikipilipinas will not succeed like on Spanish Wikipedia-Enciclopedia Libre controversy that Enciclopedia Libre, first surpass in terms of number of articles but later Spanish Wikipedia surpass Enciclopedia Libre in terms of number of articles. This is my basis for merging of Wikipilipinas to Wikipedia. I have no intention to harm Wikipilipinas but it is the fact that Wikipilipinas tolerates original sources. I am ready to fight for Wikipedia survival.--Joseph Solis in Australia 07:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, as (I think) I may have stated in the past, I think there's a place for Wikipilipinas on the web. Right now, they've been (trying, at least) trimming down to directly-Philippine-relevant pages. And there's still my Matrix-Zion Hypothesis. :D One point though...diba pag merge, that means merge all useful encyclopedic data from the article to be merged from? Meron ba? :P Shrumster 11:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Joseph Estrada

Tomorrow would be a day that would change Philippine history. Whatever happens I hope the Tambayan will still be able to create NPOV articles about what is happening to our land. To those who own a digicam, ready yourselves. We might actually get a Featured Photo or two should my prediction (Guilty) comes to fulfillment. Actually I never been this excited since Philippine Proclamation 1017 and the arrests of prominent Leftists group leaders. Sana may mangyaring kakaiba I was not part of EDSA I (too young) and II (was in Bulacan), I hope I will be a part of history this time --Lenticel (talk) 23:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. I hope and do believe that nothing seriously untoward will happen tomorrow. Unlike the original EDSA, hoping to be part of this kind of history is nothing to look forward to anymore. (But I'll still bring a camera.) --jaded seav 03:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't want to put that guy back to the throne (and I don't like the one sitting there either) and I don't want bloodshed. I just hope that something good will happen in this country after this event and if something is needed to usher that change I want to be in it. --Lenticel (talk) 03:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Sigh. Didn't the Chinese have a saying "May you live in interesting times"? And wasn't it considered a curse? Oh well. The Chinese character for "Crisis" is composed of the characters for "danger" and "opportunity". (hehe. Neither statement is something I'm ready to produce citations for) Whatever happens, may it lead to a greater maturity for our body politic -- and as a result lead to some relief from the "dark night of the soul" our society has been suffering through time immemorial. Alternativity 14:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC) (Oh by the way, sorry a couple of crises led to my disappearance for a week or so)
Erap Plunder Case, anyone? --Howard the Duck 04:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
The timeline is apparently lifted from ABS-CBN. here --bluemask (talk) 05:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Why am I not surprised to find out who created the article? --seav 05:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Tag it with {{db-copyvio}}. --Howard the Duck 06:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted already. Can someone care to recreate the article (because we need an article for the trial) but maybe under a different title? Joseph Estrada plunder trial? Plunder trial of Joseph Estrada? --seav 15:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
How about Trial of Joseph Estrada as per Trial of Saddam Hussein? --Howard the Duck 23:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I started a stub article. The problem with your name is that it could also refer to the impeachment trial, an article-worthy event itself. --seav 01:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
We can place it at Impeachment of Joseph Estrada. --Howard the Duck 02:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Don't use Impeachment - it is the process of removing a public official from office, this exercise is his trial. --Scorpion prinz (Talk | contribs) 02:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I think he was referring to the impeachment trial itself, not the current one. Anyway, I stuck a shitload of references onto the article, but not yet integrated into in-line referfences. Anyone, feel free to do so. Politics just isn't my gig. Shrumster 07:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Can they place this in the wikipedia main page and take out APEC?? --Exec8 22:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

there is even no wikinews for it...--Exec8 22:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm working on a Tagalog Wikinews article on Erap's guilty verdict. Of course, speaking of the Tagalog Wikinews (which by the way is still on Incubator), I still need contributors and supporters! VERY BADLY. --Sky Harbor 12:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Contents of http://elgu2.ncc.gov.ph/ and official Philippine LGU-Webpages copyrighted?

Since this one seems to be inactive, my question there here again. --83.242.63.120 22:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello together, I am translating articles about Philippine-LGU for German-WP. Some of those articles are simple copies of official LGU webpages. I´d like to know, if content of these pages is 'work of the Philippine Government' according to Philippine copyright law and therefore utilizable in terms of GFDL. Thank you! --83.242.61.187 20:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

It would be best to ask the website in question. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 01:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
It would be ineffective since most Philippine LGUs don't even have means of connecting to the Internet and responding to these queries. If I interpret Section 176 correctly (which I still despise because of the conflict of government copyright being really free or not), public documents and text published by any branch of the Philippine government, including state-owned corporations, are in the public domain. --Sky Harbor 12:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Philippine-American War result: annexation/control/colonization?

The result in the infobox for this article is subject to continuous change between colonization and other terms such as annexation and control. I have raised the issue on the talk page that colonization is a better term to use than annexation or control, unless someone can come up with a better expression than the "extension of American colonialism over the Philippines". I've gotten the sense that people are either trying to minimize the American impact on the PI or do not think that colonization is appropriate given a lack of large scale American immigration there, most likely more of the latter. Interested editors are invited to comment on the article's talk page. BrokenSphereMsg me 15:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd say occupation? Since annexation would mean, they partially own part of the Philippine and just annex the rest. --Scorpion prinz (Talk | contribs) 02:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Lead for the Iglesia ni Cristo article.

Earlier, someone from this WikiProject asked to have the lead of the INC article to be expanded. Is it possible for any of you here to help us out with that? --wL<speak·check> 02:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Philippine Nursing Licensure Exam

I didn't even know this article existed until just a few days ago. The article is orphaned so it didn't show up in google until recently. Just posting it here to let people know that it exists. Also see EPI (Philippines) — Sandtiger 11:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

It requires a major cleanup. --Lenticel (talk) 23:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I've removed a whole lot of information on the site that looks out of place. Like...scientific calculators, anyone? =P --- Tito Pao 01:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
It looks better now. Good work Tito Pao!--Lenticel (talk) 04:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
lol...honestly, when I first saw the article, I thought the article was all about scientific calculators ;-) --- Tito Pao 20:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Philippines is the 301st most viewed article in the English Wikipedia

I just discovered this [3]. The Philippines article is the 301st most viewed in English Wikipedia this month with about 49,000+ views per day. What that does mean? Since, it is the most viewed Philippine-related article, we can promote there (at least in the Philippines talk page) our Wikiprojects and Wikimedia Philippines and invite more Filipinos (or non-Filipinos) to help in contributing and cleaning-up Philippine-related articles in Wikipedia. --Jojit fb 02:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)-

The three EDSA Revolutions

There's an ongoing discussion at Talk:EDSA III to move the three EDSA articles into their "proper" article names. Please join in the discussion. --Howard the Duck 13:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

These things are best resolved with a googlefight--Nino Gonzales 02:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to the Tambayan Philippines Assessment Department

Philippine-related
articles		 Importance
Top High Mid Low None Total
Quality
FA 3 1 3 1 1 9
A 1 1
GA 1 3 7 9 20
B 30 34 12 21 2 99
Start 6 42 11 15 10 84
Stub 1 17 12 14 26 70
Assessed 42 97 45 60 39 283
Unassessed 0 0 1 3 153 157
Total 42 97 46 63 192 440
September 8, 2007 stats

Welcome to the Tambayan Philippines Assessment Department! This is part of the proposed dual nature of the Tambayan Philippines: first and foremost, it is a regional noticeboard for Philippine-related articles, and it is now a WikiProject for the Philippines. This dual nature is emphasized by the fact that we are neither named a "regional noticeboard" nor a "WikiProject".

Filipinos or Wikipedians who are interested in the Philippines who just want to hang-out with other Filipino Wikipedians and hear Philippine-related Wikipedia news can do so in our various talk pages (as a regional noticeboard). While those who want to expand and improve the coverage of Philippine-related articles can do so in our various project pages (as a WikiProject).

Shown to the right is the September 8, 2007 statistics of the articles currently tagged to be under the scope of the Tambayan Philippines. To tag other articles, just use the following template:

{{WPPhilippines| class=X | importance=Y }}
Where X = FA, A, GA, B, Start, Stub, or blank, and Y = Top, High, Mid, Low, or blank

Check out the Assessment page for more details and guidelines. For the curious, the {{Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines/notice}} page was moved to {{WPPhilippines}} since all the other project banners are in the Template namespace.

Let's start tagging our pages! --seav 15:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Renewed call for assessment and RFC

I've restructured the Assessment Department page and we need more activity there. (After all, we do plan in incorporating WikiProject-like activities into the Tambayan, right?) Some things to do:

  1. Comment on the new scope guidelines (based on the discussion)
  2. Comment on the importance guidelines (based on the discussion)
  3. Help identify the Top-importance articles
  4. Continue identifying and tagging the estimated 5,000 extant Philippine-related articles in EN-Wikipedia.

--seav 10:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Please help fix the unassessed backlog. I already assessed half of it as of writing. P.S. can someone fix the Template, portal etc. tags. They show as "unassessed", causing an increase in the backlog--Lenticel (talk) 10:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE: finished assessing every last one. --Lenticel (talk) 09:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Tambayan_Philippines/Archive_12&oldid=1136056468"