User talk:Noypi380

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Welcome 2 Vfd 2005 Charter Change in the Philippines? 3 Guidelines for writing the Ethnic Groups of the Philippines Article 4 AfD 5 Template:RegchangeRP 6 Mike Abundo 7 Template:Formula One teams 8 Wiki essays 8.1 What are Wiki essays? 8.2 What are essays? 8.3 What are the differences between Wiki essays and Wikipedia? 8.4 What are the differences between blogs and Wiki essays? 9 Thanks for the Barnstar! 10 Your edit to Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo 11 My RfA 12 e-mail 13 Proposed changes to Status of religious freedom in the Philippines page 13.1 Need discussion and/or some help 14 Huh? 15 Disputed NPOV 16 Let's vote for Mariano Trias 17 Blood Compact/Sandugo and Sandugo Festival 18 Hello Garci scandal 19 Impeachment in the Philippines

[edit] Welcome

Welcome to my user talk page for 2006. Pls leave your messages here. To view an archive of messages for 2005, pls click here. Thank you. --Noypi380 02:58, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vfd 2005 Charter Change in the Philippines?

So, are you ready is we go ahead with deleting? I'll investigate according to policy. Regards,--Jondel 06:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I took the liberty of copying your words verbatim. The Afd already exists and should be operating.--Jondel 09:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I was planning to do it myself eh, but ok, thanks very much. :) --Noypi380 10:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Guidelines for writing the Ethnic Groups of the Philippines Article

Noypi! We're discussing guidelines in writing the Ethnic groups in the Philippines article in the Tambayan. Would appreciate your inputs! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:TAMBAY#Guidelines_for_writing_the_Ethnic_Groups_of_the_Philippines_Article--Nino Gonzales 14:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'll join and input, when I am certain and already sure. Ethnicity has many definitions, and social scientists in the Philippines do not have as many a consensus as I hoped. What is worse is that we have few experts, and ordinary contributors can have alot of misunderstandings. For the meantime, I will just read up what was discussed, and I will ask around. :)--Noypi380 14:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AfD

Don't worry. ComputerJoe 15:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, no worries..:) --Noypi380 04:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:RegchangeRP

Why did you revert my changes? First, I corrected the grammar; secondly, I corrected a hyphen between dates to an n-rule; thirdly, I centred the heading; fourthly, I corrected the presentation so that dates were presented in the correct Wikipedia style (so that they show up correctly according to readers' preference-settings). It's not clear why you object to any of that; perhaps you could explain before reverting again. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, Lets talk in the talk page of the template. :) --Noypi380 16:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mike Abundo

That was not vandalism, but is actually the truth. Do a search on the name "Mike Abundo" or my full name "Noelle De Guzman" and you'll find some forwarded messages and other blog entries about the uproar in the Philippine cosplay community caused by Mr. Abundo.

That article is quite the vanity article, though. It was created by Mike Abundo himself and in the version you reverted to, he's non-notable. Noelle De Guzman (talk) 14:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, :) --Noypi380 03:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Formula One teams

Hey mate I noticed here you changed "Super Aguri" to "Aguri", "Red Bull" to "RBR" and "Toro Rosso" to "STR" in the team names. Is there a specific reason you did this, because in my opinion it would be pretty difficult for a relative newcomer to F1 to know what RBR or STR stood for if they are looking up the teams. AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 08:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I changed it based on the labels used from an official TV network of F1 during qualifying. Actually, I also saw "Sauber BMW" instead of "BMW Sauber". As I recall the naming of the cars were "STR Cosworth", "RBR Ferrari" "Sauber BMW", and "Aguri Honda", despite the official names of the teams. For example, the car Ferrari is called that despite the fact that the official name is "Scuderia Ferrari Marboro". The reader can just click the link to read more on the details. But if you really believe that it should be changed back, I don't mind. :) --Noypi380 09:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wiki essays

Hi Noypi!

Do you like essays? I was looking for a wiki in the web where you could write essays (of whatever topic), get feedback from readers the community (just like Wikipedia), and continuously improve the essays; but I couldn’t find any. Would you like to start something like this? Do you think Wikicities would be a good place to put this? I made an FAQ to explain it more:

[edit] What are Wiki essays?

Wiki essays are essays posted in a wiki.

[edit] What are essays?

According to Wikipedia,

An essay is a short work that treats a topic from an author's personal point of view, often taking into account subjective experiences and personal reflections upon them. Essays are usually brief works in prose, but works in verse are sometimes dubbed essays (e.g. Alexander Pope's An Essay on Criticism (1711) and An Essay on Man (1733-1734). Many voluminous and famous works refer to themselves as essays (e.g. John Locke's An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1690), Thomas Malthus's An Essay on the Principle of Population (1798)).

Virtually anything may be the subject of an essay. Topics may include actual happenings, issues of human life, morality, ethics, religion and many others. An essay is, by definition, a work of non-fiction, and is often expository.

[edit] What are the differences between Wiki essays and Wikipedia?

1. You don’t need to be NPOV, although you can be
2. Essays don’t have to be verifiable, although they will be more believable if they are
3. Essays can be written in the first person
4. Essays are personal; therefore, changes should only be made by the writer and those allowed by him (who, if he wants, could be everyone in the world)

[edit] What are the differences between blogs and Wiki essays?

1. Blog entries are (generally) static. Wiki essays receive feedback from readers in terms of content and writing (just like Wikipedia), and could be continuously improved by its author/s.
2. Blogs are (generally) biographical journals. Essays could also be biographical, but perhaps not as commonly as blogs.

--Nino Gonzales 01:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry... had a wikivacation... I proposed the wiki but I never got a response (I submitted another proposal after which got turned down)... and got too busy to fight for it... I'm sure some smart guy from silicon valley will think of how to make money out of it one of these days... I suppose I could just wait for that... and I'm not sure if there are too many people who write essays for fun and want to get merciless feedback about their writing... hehe... thanks for the support :) --Nino Gonzales 01:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the Barnstar!

Thanks again! I am very much honored! Howard the Duck | talk, 13:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit to Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo

Your recent edit to Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // Tawkerbot2 09:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, but it was a legit edit. :) --Noypi380 11:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

Congrats! --Noypi380 15:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] e-mail

Paki enable naman.--Jondel 07:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed changes to Status of religious freedom in the Philippines page

Hi, I see that you have recently made a number of improvements to this page. I infer that you may have some close interest in the style/formatting/organization of the page. It seems to me that the page has some stylistic and section-organization problems, though it may be that I just misunderstand Wiki page organization. The root of the problem which I believe I see is the way the References section on this page is used. I propose the following changes:

1. rename "References" to "See Also"
2. rename "External Links" to "References" and put a <references/> area in it for footnote targets
3. add <ref> tags where appropriate in the page text
4. if needed, add an "External Links" section containing links which are not footnotes targets
5. physically reorder these sections as Reference, then Exterrnal Links, then See Also

If there is some reason not to do this or reason to do it differently let's discuss this on either my talk page or yours. Barring objections, I will make suchlike changes in the near future. -- Boracay Bill 00:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Need discussion and/or some help

Having seen no objection to the above, I began the changes. I made the initial changes in two steps (see the article's History page). The first step was to redo the "References" and "External Lnks" sections and to redo the Estrada vs. Escritor footnoting. I think that went well.

The second step was to redo the prior footnoting, footnote-by-footnote. I ran into trouble here. I began by redoing the Sison footnote and references to it. I thought that went well until I started redoing the Schumacher footnote and references to that one. I soon ran into what looks like a reference to the Sison footnote which I had missed (search the page text for "Constitutions is missing (5)" to see that missed Sison reference). It would have been easy enough to pick that missed reference up, but I then realized that I would be pretty much guessing about which footnote references go with which footnotes as that information is not clear to me from reading the page text. The next footnote reference occurrance, for example, reads "(489)" -- I am not at all certain which footnote that refers to.

So -- the current status is that the task of redoing the references and the footnotes is partially done, and I am doubtful that I can continue it alone with introducing some mismatches between references and footnotes.

Could someone who is familiar with the reference material take a look at this and either finish the footnote revisions or let me know which footnote references go with which footnotes? -- Boracay Bill 06:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll work on it soon. :) --Noypi380 10:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Leaving this mostly-undone page revision in place bothers me. I still have my concern about probably introducing cite vs. footnote mismatches, but I'll go ahead and finish this with my best guess at which cites refer to what footnotes. That will get most of the grunt-work out of the way; correcting mismatches, once those are identified by someone who is familiar with the reference material, will not involve much further editing work. -- Boracay Bill 01:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I've completed the basic grunt work of reorganizing the footnotes into a wiki-style References section. I have no doubt mismatched some cites with the wrong footnotes, and this needs straightening out. See the articles discussion page for more info. Sorry about adding to your workload. -- Boracay Bill 03:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Haha, no worries, and good work. If ever there are any errors, someone will correct it. :) Help whenever I can, and as soon as I find out any errors, I'll fix it. :) --Noypi380 07:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Huh?

Read you response. Exactly, the name change is politically correct as you explain, and worse, has weakened the article beacaue it won't be found. The article rename is simple woeful and will ensure it doesn't get many hits. But if that is what is desired, at least people looking for sensible information on the status of "separation fo church and state" in the Philippines won't look at (and certainly won't be able to find by specific search) the article bizarrely called "religious Freedom" on wiki. I'm not sure this is what you want? In my opinion, this is the effect this renaming will have. You entirely miss my point about China and Iran as contrasts. These are areas where the title the article now has (actually the same as their own State ideologies) is really comic to specialists who know anything about their constitutions which guarantee "freedom of religion" (not). By the way, you imply I am Philippino, and you are not correct. While I largely agree with your judgment on the tendency to bias in Philippino articles, you are wrong about where I come from. I have visited the Philippines, but am an Australian of Causasian background. My speciifc academic qualifications are in Theology and Philosophy, my work is the secular [Australian Broadcasting Corporation] as a religion specialist. This name change for the article is retrograde. My point is that people OUTSIDE the Philippines will not look at this article because its new name makes no proper sense. It is not relevant to international understandings of the debate about what is generally known as "separation of church and state". This is what Americans, Australians, the British, Canadians, Indians, the Irish (just in the English speaking world) call it. The equivalent stands in other European languages as well. I really think you should reconsider this. The point is not to make the article obscure and hard to find after being politically correct so as to avoid offending a muslim minority by using the word "church". They have heard it before. Really, they have. They don't need to be patronised. If you really HAVE TO - call the article "separation of Religion and State" - but even that will not be very searchable online. "Separation of church and State" is the sensible and historic title- particularly in nations like the Philippines where there is a Christian majority. Cor Unum 10:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The constitution of the Philippines guarantees Freedom of religion clearly. Did you also see the infobox in the bottom of the article? :)--Noypi380 13:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Pls read Worldwide view, systemic bias, Neutral point of view, and the series of articles below. Thanks.

--Noypi380 11:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed NPOV

Amusing you should point out the NPOV link. Further to my comments above, I have now read the article more carefully, and frankly it is as far from a neutral point of view as it could be without being downright silly (which it is not). The article is full of anti-Church views which are not based in fact and are unbalanced. I mean really, the references to Urdaneta are shamefully distorted. He wasn't just a priest- he was one of the worlds' great navigators, and the article merely refers to him as if he was there to subjugate the natives. Talk about black-armband history! Cor Unum 11:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with all your unfounded, false claims and other comments about me 100%, but I have no interest in responding to you anymore. Is it really necessary for you to raid my talk page too? Be bold and edit articles! BTW the article includes the Filipino Muslims, who are entitled to have their data and POV accomodated and added in the article, irregardless of the Christian majority. :) --Noypi380 13:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Let's vote for Mariano Trias

Hey there Noypi380! I would like to ask for your vote for the article of Mariano Trias in Wikipedia's Article Creation and Improvement Drive.

I believe that this article still needs a bit of clean-up and expansion. I hope you would vote for the article in this link.

Thanks a lot!!! ---- Kevin Ray 08:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blood Compact/Sandugo and Sandugo Festival

Please comment on whether there is a need to make a separate article for the Blood Compact/Sandugo and a separate one for the Sandugo Festival.--Pinay06 08:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Best to merge the two, but blood compact english article is a separate article for all blood compacts, even non-Philippine ones. :) --Noypi380 12:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

If blood compacts are separate for all English articles I think they should be separte in this case too. :)--Jondel 07:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay. but there is no blood compact yet. :) --Noypi380 10:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all the input, you guys! Sorry, I did not see these until now. My bad...Rest assured that your points will be taken into consideration. BTW, I did a separate article for Sandugo from Sandugo Festival. You might like to post more comments in Talk:Sandugo. Thanks.-Pinay06 06:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, :) --Noypi380 10:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

BTW, Blood Compact is a redirect to Sandugo for now...--Pinay06 19:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello Garci scandal

Hello! I just read the Hello Garci scandal article. Very impressive! It is well written and the flow is good. I would like to see some more sentences on the results of the SWS and Pulse Asia surveys, too. Maybe just percentages especially on the Net Satisfaction ratings of President Arroyo. (It looks like to me that her net satisfaction ratings have continued to go downhill since. See Social Weather Stations, especially the Media Releases starting 1 July 2005 and 15 July 2005. --Pinay06 06:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much. :) On adding survey data, please go ahead in editing it, I would appreciate any contribution you can add to Hello Garci scandal :0 . --Noypi380 11:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I have inserted the following in the Public Opinion section of Hello Garci scandal, as follows:

The Social Weather Stations or SWS June 28-30, 2005 Metro Manila poll results yielded that 59% say GMA told the Comelec official to cheat and 84% support full airing of tapes. In the same survey, President Arroyo received a rather poor net trust rating of -31 while the COMELEC's net trust rating was -27. ^[1]

According to the SWS July 12-14, 2005 Metro Manila Poll: GMA should resign, say 62%; or else she should be impeached, say 85%. President Arroyo's net trust rating was still poor at -33. ^[2] Incidentally, President Arroyo's net trust rating has stayed low (negative) since then.

Please check.--Pinay06 20:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Impeachment in the Philippines

Hi! I placed this message in the talk page, too. Here are some valuable resources for this article:

• Rules of Procedure in Impeachment Proceedings
• Archives for Arroyo Impeachment
• SWS Poll: 79% of Pinoys wanted GMA impeached --Pinay06 09:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay :) --Noypi380 09:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)