User talk:Estarapapax

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia!

Hello Estarapapax! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! -- alphaChimp(talk) 06:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Getting Started
Getting your info out there
Getting more Wikipedia rules
Getting Help
Getting along
Getting technical

[edit] POTD scheduling

Hi and thanks for your efforts in scheduling the Picture of the day. However, the image you selected, Image:800px-Katipuneros.jpg is not a Featured Picture. The Pictures of the day are selected from the existing Featured pictures in a roughly FIFO order. If you are interested in nominating this image for Featured status, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. If you would like to help out with the POTD, please be sure to read Wikipedia:Picture of the day/Guidelines. Thank you and let me know if you have any questions. howcheng {chat} 17:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Spratly with flags.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Spratly with flags.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 10:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I added proper copyright tag minutes after I uploaded the picture. I forgot to add the tag immediately on the time I uploaded the file, that's why the bot sent me this message. I just felt I need to somehow say this issue is resolved already. This response is very late though. Estarapapax (talk) 04:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I salute you and your article.

I salute you for the article that you had created, titled Policies, activities and history of the Philippines in Spratly Islands. However, there are some issues with that article (typos for example.) Still, I salute you for that action. Why don't you join Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines? (It's a mere suggestion). -iaNLOPEZ1115 TaLKBaCK Vandalize it UBX 08:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] your nomination at RfD

Hi, I just commented on the actual nomination page, but I wanted to be sure and let you know that you don't need to go through the full deletion process for obvious goofups like that (we all make them ...). Instead, you can just tag any page you have mistakenly created for speedy deletion by adding {{db-author}} on the top line, above the redirect (or whatever other mistaken content you no longer need). There's no need to do anything else; an administrator will delete it later. By the way, I hope you stick around to create more articles like the one you made here; this is exactly the sort of thing Wikipedia needs more of. — Gavia immer (talk) 16:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A friend of mine works in NAMRIA

Hi!, this is Leapmark, as what ive said a friend of mine works in NAMRIA, i asked him if he could give me a list of some Philippine names for it s claims in Spratlys. I apologized for what ive did. Very sorry. The list is incomplete and uncertain, especially in Union Banks section, it was an email sent to me. By the way, NAMRIA is right, Panatag is the name of Scarborough Shoal (check Philippine Star, March 10, 2007 issue. on the news section regarding Spratly deal.). Sabina is Escoda, not Bulig. I called them already, they admitted errors.

Again, sorry. Thanks. I believe that Spratlys,Panatag,Sabah is ours. Godbless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leapmark (talk • contribs) 03:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

It's ok. I included citations for the Philippine names because some might challenge the accuracy of those. Anyway, the reference I used for that is the PDF file pointed by the footnote. In that file it says that Sabina is Bulig. So, if your friend confirmed that it was indeed Escoda, then we'll just settle with it. It will be better if you can still give citations for those, but it is not that really necessary especially because the Chinese, Vietnamese and Malaysian names have no citations. Anyway, just don't remove the citations from other Philippine names which have citations. As for those emailed to you, just leave them without any citations.
If you like, you can ask you friend to provide you a copy of those names. Maybe he/she can photocopy them (well, if it contains the other 7107 islands of the Philippines, it will be tremendously hard.) Then, you create a PDF file of those copies (by scanning) and upload them to any web archives and cite them as your source. Or you can ask your friend if NAMRIA has a soft copy of the lists. You can easily convert that soft copy to PDF file. Anyway, these are mere suggestions. Estarapapax (talk) 04:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Reed Bank oil field.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Reed Bank oil field.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 11:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

UPDATE. Fixed already. I forgot to specify the article to which the fair-use rationale must apply. Estarapapax (talk) 09:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Reed Bank oil field.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Reed Bank oil field.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

UPDATE. I always use "Show Preview" bottom while editing pages. When I uploaded the photo, I haven't saved the changes I made for the article that would use the photo for about five hours. Hence, the bot gave me this message. Estarapapax (talk) 09:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Image:Pagasa Island PAF Jet .jpg

A tag has been placed on Image:Pagasa Island PAF Jet .jpg, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Edward Sandstig (talk) 09:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

UPDATE. Proceeded removing the image from the page that links to it. I added {{db-author}} to the image. Sorry, I've met the image in some forums and it's coupled with Spratly captions. I thought it was really PAF jet (I'm not a military geek). Sorry for this mistake. Estarapapax (talk) 09:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
No problem, was just worried since some anonymous user kept adding it to the PAF page using that photo as "evidence". :) --Edward Sandstig (talk) 09:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Republic of Morac-Songhrati-Meads

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article Republic of Morac-Songhrati-Meads, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 17:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Scarborough Shoal and Macclesfield Bank

Hello! I've just now read your very comprehensive article on the Spratly Islands. You seem to be very knowledgeable about that subject. I am editing an article on the Chinese wikipedia on this topic, I am wondering if you know about the political subdivision to which the Philippine controlled Scarborough Shoal and Macclesfield Bank features belong? Perhaps a subdivision in name only or have they not yet been incorporated into any political subdivision? Then are they purely under the administration of the Philippine Navy? Thanks a bunch for any information that you may provide! (You can simply reply here, I'll check back. Thanks again!) --Shibo77 (talk) 06:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, what I do know is that Philippines does not claim Macclesfield Bank. During the recent issue on the Archepelagic Baseline Bill (see UNCLOS), it was not included in drawing the baseline of the Philippines (Spratlys and Scarborough are included). However, I'm pretty sure Philippines will still assert some rights over the feature if it lies 200 miles (called as EEZ in the UNCLOS) within the drawn baseline. I've read the Wikipedia article on Macclesfield Bank and there seems to be an incorrect assertion there: Macclesfield Bank is not occupied by the Philippines.
Philippines incorporate Scarborough Shoal, on the other hand, as part of Zambales province. However, it is not clear whether it is a part of a municipality or a city. But most probably it isn't part of any lower political subdivision below a province. And on whether Scarborough Shoal is occupied by Philippines or not, I will say it is occupied. Numerous published materials, online or print, say that it is not occupied by the Philippines. Actually, this is because Philippines does not want to assert that it actually occupies the feature so that China will not get mad with this fact. Also, China does not even want to acknowledge that most features in South China Sea are occupied by other countries so this brought the confusion on the real status of Scarborough Shoal. (I've read this editorial saying that when Chinese fishermen were reported lost near Thitu Island, a Philippine-occupied island in Spratlys, Chinese officials said that the fishermen were rescued by a Singaporean ship near Mischief Reef, a Chinese-occupied. However, Associated Press reported that the fishermen were actually rescued by Filipinos from Thitu Island. The editorial I've read, based on this events, concluded that China does not even recognize that there are islands in South China Sea which are occupied by other countries.) So, why do I say Scarborough is occupied by the Philippines though the Philippine government itself does not assert this? It is because Philippine Navy is always present in that feature 24/7 and many Chinese fishermen were already arrested in that area. Actually, Philippines had already built a lighthouse there in the 60's and 70's and it is still there. With the Philippine Navy always guarding it and with a Filipino-built structure over it, Scarborough is undoubtedly occupied by the Philippines.
Sorry for having to reply lengthy on the status of Scarborough Shoal. I myself agree with our government of not saying too much on the fact that Philippines occupy Scarborough Shoal. This may just get the Dragon more mad. And we are just mere little hopeless rats for that Dragon. eStaRapapax xapaparatse! exsatpaarpa! 15:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
ADDITIONAL: I've noticed, while I'm checking my watchlist that you have added a {{fact}} (actually changed it) on article Scarborough Shoal regarding the lighthouse built over there. Well, because I've said to you that there is actually a lighhouse there on the above paragraphs, I think I should at least convince you that this is indeed true. Click this link. I really have no intention of referencing that lighthouse thing on the Scarborough article because like what I've said, we Filipinos should really be cautious. That link tells that there used to be a lighthouse but the lighthouse is still there though not functional anymore. eStaRapapax xapaparatse! exsatpaarpa! 15:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick and informative reply! I truly appreciate it! I hope that Archipelagic Baseline Bill will be ratified soon! Thanks again! --Shibo77 (talk) 21:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Redirects for Naruto and Bleach

Probably the easiest thing would be to just make subpages in your own userspace and use those as redirects. For example, User:Estarapapax/List of N episodes. -- Ned Scott 06:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

OK. I never thought that can work. Thanks very much. eStaRapapax xapaparatse! exsatpaarpa! 12:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry again

Sorry again. Well, I'm not upset about what you said. I admit it, I'm having a hard time on copyrights. I have a hard time finding the philippine public domain to tag those photos... can you teach me, sorry, I'm 38 years old. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leapmark (talk • contribs) 08:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)