User talk:Howard the Duck/Archive9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hello...

...if you have time, could you please send me an email at my GMail email addy? (The email's the same as my WP name ("titopao").) Once you send me a ping e-mail, I'll let you know the rest of the details. Thanks! --- Tito Pao 21:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems you haven't activated your email yet??? --Howard the Duck 08:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Didn't know what happened...anyway, I've activated the "email this user" link from my account temporarily. Once I get your email, I'll disable it, then send you another email. Thanks! --- Tito Pao 11:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

How can you grade...

How can you grade the image Image:Say_alonzo.jpg, because I'm not sure it is not a free image. Can you also tell Dugong Pilipino about the image? Thank you. - 上村七美 | talk 11:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

If you get still get the original pic from the PBB website, just tag it with {{db-copyvio}}. --Howard the Duck 11:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems he uploaded other pics as well, if the original URLs are reproduced it'll be speedily deleted. --Howard the Duck 11:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Signature

Hi Howard the Duck. Your signature is currently [[User:Howard the Duck|Howard]] [[Special:Contributions/Howard the Duck|the]] [[User talk:Howard the Duck|Duck]]

It will look exactly the same, but be shorter in the edit window and therefore easier to work around, if you change it to '''[[User:Howard the Duck|Howard]] [[Special:Contributions/Howard the Duck|the]] [[User talk:Howard the Duck|Duck]]'''

Could you please do so? Thank you. Picaroon (Talk) 02:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok thanks. I've been looking for those sig shops but I can't find them... thanks again. --Howard the Duck' 03:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Batasang Bayan

The quasi-legislature body known as the Batasang Bayan has considered it as legislature though shaky at first. I spoke famous historian and author of the new book Assembly of the Nation, Manolo Quezon III whom i asked personally that if Batasan Bayan was just advisory council or like the Philippine Commission. According to him that the said legislative body was a legislature since its function were advisory and legislative no laws were passed since Marcos ruled by decree. In fact i will send u and other people who object placing of the Batasan Bayan in the legislative template and scanned scaled downed that the House of Representatives produced that shows that the Batasang Bayan was part of legislature the National Assembly and the Batasang Pambansa Rizalninoynapoleon 17:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Seryoso ka diyan ha? How about me confirming this from Manolo Quezon himself? --- Tito Pao 19:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Here is the picture to prove as evidence please save as soon as possible. Please zoom to the year 1976. The book was corrected at the last minute [1] And i will so show you a page of the book Rizalninoynapoleon 05:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Per Manolo Quezon III himself:

I don't think he recalled our conversation directly. Definitely, in our
book, the legislative periods are these:

(malolos congress, 1899 was our first legislature; the philippine
commission, 1901-1907 was purely appointive; it then served upper house,
1907-1916: the book commemorates the philippine assembly as the first
popularly-elected legislature in our history, and one can be traced as the
direct predecessor of the current house of representatives)

1. the philippine assembly, 1907
2. the philippine legislature, 1916
3. the national assembly, 1935
4. congress of the philippines under the commonwealth (est. 1941)
5. national assembly, 2nd republic
6. restored congress of the philippines, 1945 congress of the philippines,
third republic 1946-1972
7. interim batasanang pambansa and batasang pambansa, new society and 4th
republic 1978-1986
8. congress of the philippines 1987

And such as our book was commissioned by the house, those are the official
legislative periods since 1907. The batasang bayan, for the book, was a
transitional institution. Marcos had the executive and legislative powers
combined in his person from martial law onwards.

Since it was a rushed conversation, perhaps he misunderstood me. But the
above is what's contained in the book and reflects a consensus. You may
quote this e-mail message.

For verification purposes, I have forwarded a copy of MLQ3's email to Howard. Thanks --- Tito Pao 05:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I accept his argument and opinion then where i put the batasan bayan advisory Rizalninoynapoleon 05:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It was clear even from the very law that created the Batasang Bayan that its function was merely on an advisory capacity, as the legislative power rested on Marcos alone (which means it never was a "temporary legislative body"). (source)

Section 1. Creation. There is hereby created a Legislative 
Advisory Council which shall hereinafter be known as 
the Batasan Bayan.

...

Section 4. Functions. The Batasan Bayan shall function as 
an advisory body to the President on legislative matters.
As such powers and functions shall consist of but not limited
to:

(a) Assisting and advising the President of his lawmaking functions;
(b) Providing a forum for the citizenry, through the herein
designated representatives, to ventilate their views on national
issues, as well as their opinions on the manner of administering
the affairs of the government;
(c) Providing a forum for the rationalization, unification,
and clarification on the policies and programs of the Executive
Branch of Government;
(d) Providing a mechanism for actually conducting a review
of the structures, policies and efficiencies of the different
Barangays and Sanggunians and submit its finding and
recommendations to the President.

--- Tito Pao 06:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

That's it. The law trumps over Manalo Quezon, anytime, anyday, anywhere. --Howard the Duck 07:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Correction:Manolo Quezon. you twit Rizalninoynapoleon 07:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Typo. Should've just typed Manuel Quezon III... --Howard the Duck 07:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

De Venecia vs de Venecia

I believe the usage of De vs de depends on how the person writes it. I had classmates who will make emphasis that his Dela Cruz must be dela Cruz and a De Guzman would emphasize it should be de Guzman. For Jose De Venecia he spells it as a De not a de. --Scorpion prinz ^{(Talk | contribs)} 17:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Do we have JDV's official site or least fansites (lol) so we can have the last word? --Howard the Duck 03:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

~~The official profile from the House of Representatives (a link is on the article) has it in small caps, although some web sites and news sites have it in capital letter.~~ There is an inconsistency. The link to the PDF file from the House of Representatices has it in small caps, but the other, web-based profile has it in capitals (I don't know if this other one is deliberate or, like Wikipedia, if the House's web CMS defaults the first letter of the surname as a capital letter). --- Tito Pao 04:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

In this case we'll have to follow the default convention (for the meantime), which is "dela" is in small caps. --Howard the Duck 05:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

It's also the same for Noli De Castro --Scorpion prinz ^{(Talk | contribs)} 12:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The OVP website uses "De". --Howard the Duck 12:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

userbox

It is here because i need to know where i can propose the standard and have lots of people see it so something can be done about it also it affects much of wikipedia so it should be there

--Java7837 16:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

But it is not about the Main Page. --Howard the Duck 16:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:2006 EDSA Shrine grab.JPG

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:2006 EDSA Shrine grab.JPG. However, the image is missing a fair use rationale. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair-use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 19:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Your report to WP:AIV

Thank you for making a report about Missc204 (talk · contribs · block log) at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators generally only block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thank you. Goodnightmush^Talk 15:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I really don't use those talk templates, I'd rather compose my own message, they're more effective anyway, at least for registered users. --Howard the Duck 16:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. But generally admins won't block unless a user has been warned specifically that their actions will lead to a block. Thanks for your help> Goodnightmush^Talk 16:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

OK. Next time, I'll include a thing or two about blocking. --Howard the Duck 16:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

thanks

Just getting the hang of the whole wiki thing. I wanted to say thanks for fixing (not deleting) my goof-up in the addition of a link to information on prisoners held at Santo Tomas during WWII. 70.60.192.221 20:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Hate to be a bother. My grandparents were held captive at Santo Tomas, and I'd really like that part of history not to be forgotten. Someone keeps removing my link to the stories of those held in Santo Tomas. I'm such a newbie at this I don't know how to keep others from doing this. You seem pretty experienced, and I was wondering if you had any pointers?

It's on my watchlist so anything untoward gets revgerted, but not all the time, sometimes I get lazy so someone else reverts it. --Howard the Duck 03:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

1950 NBA Playoffs

The key to the bracket is to separate the 2nd round from the 3rd round. The bracket as drawn makes it appear as though the Eastern Division Champion, for whatever reason, was entitled to a bye that year. That is not the case; the Eastern Division Champion got a bye because, of the 3 Division Champions, it had the best record (in fact, Syracuse had the best record in the whole NBA). I don't know enough about the bracket formatting techniques to do it myself, but I would say the best approach would be two have two sets of brackets. One would be labeled "Divisional Playoffs" and would be 3 brackets, not connected to each other, showing the tournament path for the 3 Divisions (essentially, what is already there, but with the 3rd and 4th rounds shorn off). Then, in the next section of the article, we would have a separate section called "Semifinals & Finals" or something like that, with a 4-team bracket, Syracuse getting a bye on their side, with Minneapolis and Anderson playing on the other side, with a brief bit of text explaining that Syracuse got a bye out of the NBA Semifinals by virtue of having the best record of the 3 Division Champions. Do you know enough about the Wikipedia formatting system to do this? 76.10.24.245 17:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

So you're saying first there'll be a 12-team bracket then we'd use either Template:3TeamBracket or Template:4TeamBracket? --Howard the Duck 03:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Well the first half would be a 12-team bracket but with the end cut off. It would be a 12-team bracket that, standing alone, would show 3 champions (the 3 Division Champions). It would be the current bracket, but without the NBA Semifinals and NBA Finals on it. We may have to come up with a customized solution in order to display the grouping names right; the current solution, with the arrows, is a bit clunky in my opinion, although the best that could be done with this design. Then, I would use the 4-team bracket as a separate portion of the article, with Syracuse getting a bye on one side of the bracket. Does that make sense? It's hard for me to express but I can see it in my head. 76.10.24.245 14:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I can create a customized bracket for this but since this is not of top priority I may hold it off. There's a Template:3TeamBracket it'll provide one team a bye automatically to the Finals.--Howard the Duck 02:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Or we can stack 3 Template:4TeamBrackets like so:

	Semifinals					Finals

	Semifinals					Finals

	Semifinals					Finals

Basketball kit: Shorts templates

Can you add any shorts templates to the list here? Thanks. FWIW, I would probably lean away from using specific colors unless necessary. For the "thinredleftside" I would have made the red transparent, called it "thinleftside", and made the rest of the shorts white. I don't think it matters a whole lot, however. In any case, glad it is working! Rolando 15:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll do transparent thingy and the additions soon. Thanks. --Howard the Duck 15:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually for the transparent thingy, it'll be impossible if the shorts' primary color were other than white... --Howard the Duck 15:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Aklanon 4 Non-Aklanan's

Hi I'm trying to start a WiktionaryZ project to add the Aklanon Language over thar'. Why, because I got too frustrated with the en.wiktionary.org site especially IPA among other reasons. If anyone reading this (not quite spam) whom knows any (Japanese, Korean, Bisayan, BayBayin-ideograms???) other language(s) and would like to help make it happen (ie. read note at the bottom of that page) then please create an account and contribute.
http://www.omegawiki.org/Portal:akl
PS: Even if I can possibly get some grant money I will still only be volunteering my time.
--Mkouklis 12:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC) M'sorry 4 this unsolicited msg posted 2 a few user talk pages :) AKA User:Chief Mike :)

Manila external Links

Dear Mr Duck,

Than you for your point regarding my 'external link' on the Manila page. I believe that it is a legitimate link for the following reasons:

1. Many other places (cities and countries) have links referring them to travel guides which are useful for that area, as they contain information regarding that area which is not included in the article. Hence there should be no reason why my link to the Rough Guides website should be any different. Unlike many others, the Rough Guides website does not have extensive advertising on it, but rather, it provides a large degree of useful travel information.

2. As you are probably aware WikiTravel has a number of external links referring people to their own travel guide. In the Manila example, I added an external link as Wikitravel has failed to do so for this location. Surely if adding external links can be done to a series of other locations such as New York by Wikitravel, it should not be restricted for less well known places?

3. The fact that there are links to Wikitravel would suggest that information regarding travel is considered to be appropriate for the Wikipedia website.

I fully understand that there is a need to prevent people from merely advertising on Wikipedia, as this is not it's purpose. However, I hope you will agree with me that in this example, it is not a matter of advertising, but of providing a highly important link that is legitimate as it has a basis in precedent.

Kind regards,

Markrushmore 15:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)MarkrushmoreMarkrushmore 15:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Look, virtually all of your edits were reverted. If you'll be able to convince someone else it'll be fine with me. --Howard the Duck 15:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have just noticed this as well, which is a great shame. Just for reference, would you agree with the argument that I put forward as to the use and to the legitimacy of creating these external links? How do I find out who has removed all of these links as I may have to ask them to reverse their decision? Thanks for the help- I had no idea that Wikipedia worked in this wonderful way!

Markrushmore 15:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)markrushmoreMarkrushmore 15:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I really don't think Wikipedia needs more links. They don't add to the article anyway. What you can do is to contact those that reverted you. See also WP:EL and WP:SPAM. --Howard the Duck 15:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Surely, if someone were to look up Manila with the hope of travelling there at some point, it would be entirely relevant to have a link to a site which provided travel information to that area. Furthermore, Wikipedia endorses this very practice with the use of its own external links to the subsection Wikitravel- thus it is generally believed that information regarding to travel does, in fact, add to the article. For these reasons, please reverse your change and re-instate my external link. It makes sense.

Then there's a link to Wikitravel, then you're link will be there. There's no telling the floodgates of links if we'll allow your website. And it again, it doesn't really add anything to the article. If you really want to help, edit the article and add more/expand the tourist attractions section. As I've told you, I'll revert myself iff you convinced another of the "reverters". --Howard the Duck 15:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Filipino

You do lots of Philippines articles are you fili?--69.234.214.122 17:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Jknight98

Yes. --Howard the Duck 17:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:San_Miguel_Beermen_logo.gif

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:San_Miguel_Beermen_logo.gif. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

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. Bigr Tex 15:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Barangay_Ginebra_Kings_logo.gif

I have tagged Image:Barangay_Ginebra_Kings_logo.gif as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. Bigr Tex 15:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:2007 AFC Asian Cup countries.PNG

Thanks for uploading Image:2007 AFC Asian Cup countries.PNG. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Second PBA logo.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Second PBA logo.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 13:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Smile

Connell66 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

You're an outstanding editor, you really are.

Categories for Deletion, Speedy

I relisted your WP:CfDS request concerning Category:Flags of Philippines to Category:Flags of the Philippines because you forgot to add Template:cfr-speedy to the top of the category in question. In the future, please try to follow all procedures in listing categories for renaming. Thanks!-Andrew c ^[talk] 23:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

As long as this gets renamed, I've got no problem, just cut down the bureaucracy a little bit, I mean, even any admin can just go ahead with this. --Howard the Duck 01:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Categories: User talk archives