| Revision as of 05:39, 4 October 2015 editSky Harbor (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, IP block exemptions, Administrators19,206 edits →Philippine FOP-related deletion nominations at Commons.: comments← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 15:15, 20 January 2025 edit undoWikiexplorationandhelping (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers3,279 edits Notifying of requested move using rmCloser | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Tambayan Philippines/header}} | {{Misplaced Pages:Tambayan Philippines/header}} | ||
| <div style="position:relative; overflow:hidden |
<div style="position:relative; overflow:hidden; padding:15px; font-size:100%">{{shortcut|WT:TAMBAY|WT:PINOY}}This is the discussion page of ''']''', where Filipino contributors and contributors to Philippine-related articles discuss general matters regarding the development of Philippine-related articles as well as broad topics on the ] with respect to Misplaced Pages and the other Wikimedia projects. Likewise, this talk page also serves as the '']'' for Misplaced Pages concerns regarding the Philippines, enabling other contributors to request input from Filipino Wikipedians.</div> | ||
| <div style="border:3px solid #444; padding:10px; background:#EEEEEE;"> | |||
| <!-- end of header --> | <!-- end of header --> | ||
| <!-- Off topic warning --> | |||
| {{Not a forum|the ] and other Philippine-related topics|Please limit all discussion to topics pertaining to this WikiProject or its pages.}} | |||
| <!-- Off topic warning --> | |||
| <div class="mainaction action">{{center|{{Clickable button 2|Start new topic|url={{fullurl:Wikipedia_talk:Tambayan_Philippines|action=edit§ion=new}}|class=oo-ui-buttonElement-button|style=margin:1em; padding:8px; padding-left:16px; padding-right:16px; width:auto; height:auto; font-size:large;}}}}</div> | |||
| {{old move|date=9 August 2024|destination=Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Tambayan Philippines|result=Not moved|link=Special:Permalink/1241061358#Requested move 9 August 2024}} | |||
| <div style="float:right; padding-left:5px; clear:right;"> | |||
| {| style="text-align:left; border:1px solid #AAA;margin-bottom:4px; margin-left:1em; width: 293px;" bgcolor="#999999" | |||
| |-padding:5px;padding-top:0.5em;font-size: 95%; | |||
| |width="100%" bgcolor="gray"|'''Shortcuts''' | |||
| |- | |||
| |width="100%" align="center" bgcolor="white"| | |||
| ] - ] - ] | |||
| |- | |||
| |width="100%" bgcolor="gray"|'''Discussion''' | |||
| |- | |||
| |width="100%" align="center" bgcolor="white"| | |||
| '''''' | |||
| ---- | |||
| <div style="font-size:0.85em;"> | |||
| __TOC__ | |||
| </div> | |||
| |- | |||
| |width="100%" bgcolor="gray"|'''Archives''' | |||
| |- | |||
| |width="100%" align="center" bgcolor="white"| | |||
| <small> | |||
| ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | |||
| <inputbox> | |||
| type=fulltext | |||
| prefix=Misplaced Pages talk:Tambayan Philippines/ | |||
| break=no | |||
| width=40 | |||
| searchbuttonlabel=Search archives | |||
| </inputbox> | |||
| </small> | |||
| {{Archives|bot=lowercase sigmabot III|age=14|minthreadsleft=4|auto=short|collapsible=yes|collapsed=yes}} | |||
| |} | |||
| </div> | </div> | ||
| {{WP:Tambayan Philippines/WM}} | |||
| {{WP:Tambayan Philippines/Social Media}} | {{WP:Tambayan Philippines/Social Media}} | ||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| | algo = old(14d) | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 150K | |||
| | archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Tambayan Philippines/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| |counter = 38 | |||
| |counter = 53 | |||
| |algo = old(14d) | |||
| | maxarchivesize = 150K | |||
| |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Tambayan Philippines/Archive%(counter)02d | |||
| | archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}} | |||
| | minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |||
| | minthreadsleft = 4 | |||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=Misplaced Pages talk:Tambayan Philippines/Archive index|mask=Misplaced Pages talk:Tambayan Philippines/Archive <#>|leading_zeros=0|indexhere=yes}} | |||
| <!-- Off topic warning header --> | |||
| {{Off topic warning}} | |||
| <!-- Off topic warning header --> | |||
| ==Many AFDs by the same nominator?== | |||
| I happened to notice that ] has recently nominated several articles that are part of this project ]. I have no idea if those articles belong on Misplaced Pages or not. Just curious why one editor would nominate so many? ] (]) 09:21, 24 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :I think that user only nominated one AfD and it is not even Philippine-related article. Perhaps, you have posted this concern in this Philippine noticeboard by mistake. --] (]) 11:56, 24 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sorry, my bad. After digging that user's contributions, he or she indeed has several articles nominated for deletion and one of the is a Philippine-related article (]). --] (]) 12:01, 24 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Hello, all. Note that an editor can nominate as many articles for deletion as he or she deems deserving, provided they are done in ] with a valid rationale. I '''did not''' nominate ] for deletion, that was a different editor (]), but I ''did'' endorse his rationale for deletion (see ).{{od}} Also, ]: ''"I have no idea if those articles belong on Misplaced Pages or not"'' -- that is why AFDs/CFDs/RFDs exist, but you should have some idea of what constitutes ]. ] 12:28, 24 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Thanks for ping ]. Of course, the number of noms is immaterial, it's whether the nominator understands the criteria that matters. I note that several of the AFDs went on to be deleted, and I also took a look at the deleted text for a couple. I can't see any cause for concern ] - ] 13:08, 24 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I stand corrected. You didn't nominated the article Mariel Pamintuan for deletion. I also believe that anyone has the right to nominate an article for deletion regardless how many the nominations. --] (]) 13:26, 24 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: :::::: {{ping|Jojit fb|Jimfbleak}} Can you please explain where you get your information regarding the number of AfDs nominated in this WikiProject? I believe all the following ten articles have been nominated for deletion by Rms125a@hotmail.com (see ] | |||
| ::::::*] | |||
| ::::::*] | |||
| ::::::*] | |||
| ::::::*] | |||
| ::::::*] | |||
| ::::::*] | |||
| ::::::*] | |||
| ::::::*] | |||
| ::::::*] | |||
| ::::::*] ] (]) 20:03, 24 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: ::::::: I just only looked into ]. Nothing more, nothing less. -] (]) 07:13, 25 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' People who are engrossed in AfD's should probably know through experience that articles on people, how they are written, whether they are lacking in sources, aren't and shouldn't be their basis in deciding whether they meet the notability requirements. Do your work and google for sources first and save yourself from embarassment. To the avid nominator of articles on actors, Google and ] just so we don't waste each others time here. Thanks.--] (]) 14:21, 24 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| **Isn't it that the AfD nominators are also telling contributors to do their work and search for sources before making an article? Whether there's an AfD or not, someone would have to waste their time to find sources for an article anyway. --] (]) 16:50, 24 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ***All that time and energy spent in AfD nomination and discussions could be better spent actually improving the articles. Besides, it is the nominator's job to prove how one article or person is not notable, by indicating how few or how unreliable those few sources he finds about the person are. This avid nominator doesn't do none of that and I've seen him even scolded for that once. See ]. He also did ], ], and many other famous entertainers. Note that those articles are well-sourced even before he nominated them. From his current list, I see a good number actually passes NACTOR without even googling. This lazy person's AfD's are all guesses that just waste people's time.--] (]) 01:08, 25 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ****] Wrote: {{Green|All that time and energy spent in AfD nomination and discussions could be better spent actually improving the articles.}} | |||
| *****Right on!!! We (I) spend way too much time in discussions, time that would be much more useful if it was spent in building up content. | |||
| *****BTW I have added the {{tlx|WP Women}} to the talk pages of the articles about women discussed above. ] (]) 11:45, 25 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| I'll post this here since I can't be bothered to go through everything he nominated. @]. '''DO google for sourcing first before nominating something.''' Read ]. You do not determine notability by the sources used in our articles. You determine it by finding what sources can be used. You seem to be specialized in AfD nomination. The least you can do is know the policies behind them or you're just making more work for everyone else. It's nonsensical to me how you could nominate some of those who are ''clearly'' notable even with the most cursory google searches. Are you basing this off whether you've personally heard of them before? -- <small>]</small><font size="3" face =times new roman>†</font><small>]</small> 13:47, 25 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: ''"Are you basing this off whether you've personally heard of them before?"'' -- no, I never heard of any of them before. I am in New York. ] 14:13, 25 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :: I already replied . Yes I have made mistakes (Carol Banawa, Julia Barretto), but we normally judge people by the rule not the exception. Why don't you mention the articles deleted or redirected (such as Perla Adea, Mika Dela Cruz, Daniella Amable, Saicy Aguila, Sunyee Maluche, Gianna Cutler, Shaira Mae dela Cruz, Valerie Garcia, Bugoy Drilon, Laurenti Dyogi, Gian Carlos, Mika Aereen Reyes, Kristoffer Horace Neudeck, Bangs Garcia (redirect), Marvelous Alejo (redirect), Zara Aldana (redirect) and Kris Aquino Productions (redirect)), just for the most recent examples of my horrendous judgment? Perhaps if there were better quality controls at this collective so many poor articles would not be relentlessly created and there would be no need (or less of a need) to clear out the ] in the first place. This is an encyclopedia not a fansite or a blogsite. Let's see how this batch of AFDs (plus ], which I just added) turns out. '''If the majority are keep''', I will acknowledge that my vetting criteria is flawed and will voluntarily refrain from AFDing '''any''' Philippines-related articles until I figure out how to improve my vetting system and how to separate the gold from the dross. ] 14:08, 25 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::<small>], let's discuss this here:</small> @] Slow down a bit and make sure that the articles you're nominating are really non-notable first. I've noticed for example that your nomination rationales reveal nothing about what you've done to ascertain that he really is a "non-notable entertainer". I know you mean well and have done well, but when it comes to notability of non-western celebrities, please do make the extra effort. Misplaced Pages already has enough problems with ] favoring Anglophone countries. -- <small>]</small><font size="3" face =times new roman>†</font><small>]</small> 14:24, 25 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::In addition, yes, that's the point. Just because you've never heard of them before shouldn't be the reason for an AfD. And your list of "successful" AfDs is more alarming than you think. Most of those ARE notable. (or more popularly known as ) for example, is a very very well known film director and actor. I hope his article gets restored. Locally yes (as in only in the Philippines). But national notability is still notability. Just because this is the English Misplaced Pages doesn't mean we judge notability only from the perspective of English-speaking countries.-- <small>]</small><font size="3" face =times new roman>†</font><small>]</small> 14:34, 25 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Thanks, @Obsidian Soul for your kind words. I have nothing but the highest regard for Filipino people, with whom I have worked and interacted as teachers, nurses, doctors, etc. I am amazed at their resilience and integrity. I acknowledged that I am in/from New York (which I didn't have to do) as I know I am not an expert on Filipino celebrities. In the 24/7 news cycle, celebrity-obsessed world in which we live, Filipino youngsters are no more immune to vapid ] worship than any others. As I posted above, if the latest batch of AFDs are mostly kept, then I will acknowledge that my vetting criteria has become flawed and will voluntarily refrain from AFDing any further Philippines-related articles until I am sure I am on 'terra firma'. Yours, ] 14:45, 25 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::@], I hate cruft as much as the next person, and I acknowledge that yes, it's a problem. But I still take issue with how you are using AfD. You seem to be using it to determine whether or not the subject is notable. More or less throwing suspicious articles at the wall and seeing what sticks (from your characterization of it as "judging by the rule, not the exception"). And that is simply not how it works. AfD is supposed to be a place where you can ask other people to confirm that something is non-notable after ''you'' have done your own research on it. It's not a place where you ask others to prove to you that something is notable because you yourself don't know much about it. While knowing anything about the subject is not a requirement, at least ''try'' and look for evidence of notability before nominating. | |||
| ::::::Whether the AfD passes or not also has no bearing on the subject's notability. As I've already pointed out with ] (]). Just because that passed AfD does not mean he is not notable. There are dozens of reliable sources from the google searches I gave above. He is mentioned in . His article was deleted not because he wasn't notable, but because no one who knew anything saw the AfD discussion or bothered to comment (as I won't with your new list even though I know some/most of them are probably notable, because this isn't my area of interest). And more importantly, apparently because no one actually checked to see whether he is notable. Thing is, as the nominator, that's supposed to be your first task. | |||
| ::::::Given the coverage on him in secondary sources and his body of work, how is it possible that you nominated him, and more importantly, that the AfD passed? @] for example, apparently got the impression that he was only famous for being the business head of ]. LOL. . Multiple notable mainstream movies (mainly romance) and TV shows long before PBB. The other commenter, @] thinks articles like or does not pass ] (hint: '']'' is one of the major national newspapers, and ] is one of the two largest media networks of the country). | |||
| ::::::So yeah. Your vetting system ''is'' flawed. Disclaimer: I am not a fan of Dyogi. I'm just using him as an example since you mentioned him as one of your "successes". I bet every single editor in this WikiProject knows who he is.-- <small>]</small><font size="3" face =times new roman>†</font><small>]</small> 16:41, 25 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::: You're not a fan of Dyogi ("I hope his article gets restored")? ''"I bet every single editor in this WikiProject knows who he is"''. So?? Everybody on this Project (except me, as far as I can tell) is from the Philippines. Your assertions to the contrary, I do do Google searches but that doesn't mean I am going to arrive at the same conclusions you do. I am not withdrawing the noms so let's end this discussion. If the majority of the last/latest AFDs fail, well that's my humiliation and I will voluntarily refrain from AFDing Philippines-related articles until such time as I feel comfortable resuming, as I already indicated. However, a newcomer to this colloquy might come to the conclusion that somehow I only target Filipinos for article deletion. I am an equal opportunity AFDer with admitted deletionist instincts, and I will AFD anything that I deem appropriate regardless of provenance. Got it?<s>That's my last word.</s> ] 16:53, 25 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Are you implying I'm lying? LOL. Look at my contributions. Do I sound like I watch teenybopper romance movies or reality TV? I don't think I've even edited anything related to Filipino movies/TV shows. Ever. Ask them if they know who he is. And don't avoid the question. Does Dyogi pass ] or not? How do you come to your conclusions from Google searches then? Or does that not matter because you're not "withdrawing the nom", presumably with a "no matter what" attached there somewhere. | |||
| :::::::::And no. This isn't about my nationality or yours, neither is it about pride. It's your willingness to vouch for your nominations. "That's my last word" doesn't address the issue in any way. Why did you think this topic was raised in the first place? Because I think the current impression every editor has here is that you didn't search at all. | |||
| :::::::::::: ''"Because I think the current impression every editor has here is that you didn't search at all."'' -- What you "think" is of no relevance to me at all. What you ''"know"'' might be if there was anyone here even willing to back you up or if the things you post were consistent. (I seem to recall your posting ''"I know you mean well and have done well, but when it comes to notability of non-western celebrities, please do make the extra effort"'' above, before your latest snit. So which is it -- have I done well and mean well -- or are am I lazy and incompetent?) Not that your opinion matters to me. I know I do Google searches, however, that is of limited assistance given the avalanche of almost identical boilerplate formatted articles about an endless series of Filipino actors, idols, singers, stars, etc. who cannot all be notable, regardless of how reputable the local news coverage is. Thus, bios have to be reviewed to decide which are and aren't notable, and mistakes are made (Barretto, Reyes, Banawa). ] 19:44, 25 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::So did you? -- So did I what? (WTF??) ] 19:46, 25 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::When a large amount of your recent nominations are for Philippine celebrities, some of whom are quite easily verifiable as notable with a simple google search, then the only conclusion is either you did ''not'' bother to look for evidence of notability or you don't actually know how to tell notability when it comes to non-western celebrities and just presume all are non-notable by default. So which is it? As another editor pointed out above, examples like ], ], and ] ''are'' inexcusable mistakes. It's not a question of being from the Philippines. You don't need to be Filipino to see they are notable. So again, whatever criteria you used to nominate them needs to be updated. If you are even using any. Because from our standpoint, it seems like all it needs is for them to be Filipino and a celebrity (and possibly also that they have rather badly written short articles). | |||
| :::::::::And yes. I just lost my temper there. Implying I'm only challenging your edits because I'm secretly a fan of all these celebrities is insulting. -- <small>]</small><font size="3" face =times new roman>†</font><small>]</small> 17:50, 25 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::: I did '''not''' imply you are a fan of all these Filipino celebrities. However, you are a fan of Dyogi ''(" (or more popularly known as ) for example, is a very very well known film director and actor. I hope his article gets restored.")'' and should own up. You also should have participated in the Dyogi AFD (see more on that below). ] 19:54, 25 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}}As for your "So??", you still don't get it, do you? Yes, most of the editors here are from the Philippines. If most of them (at least those that grew up here) know who Dyogi is, what does that tell you? And again, this isn't about him. It's the concept of the notability of people like him.-- <small>]</small><font size="3" face =times new roman>†</font><small>]</small> 18:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::: ''"Yes, most of the editors here are from the Philippines. If most of them (at least those that grew up here) know who Dyogi is, what does that tell you?"''{{od}} It tells me that something is '''very strange''' -- since not a single keep vote or a vote from anyone, including you, on this Project was recorded in the Dyogi AFD (see ). What, if anything, that tells '''you''' is perhaps the question that should be asked. ] 19:44, 25 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *] has been here for a long time. They know the rules. If they have nominated something for deletion and it was subsequently kept, well, that's great. It does not mean their nomination of a set of articles is somehow disruptive--and that it's a set of article should surprise no one who edits Misplaced Pages: the very nature of how this works, with wikilinks and categories, means that one frequently goes from one to the next related article. Now, if Rms is nominating so many articles that editors can't keep up, that can be disruptive, and historically this has been regarded as disruptive. But from this discussion I don't see any evidence that this has happened, and if it is true that there wasn't much participation in those AfDs from editors here, then really the burden is on them. ] (]) 02:08, 26 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::@] I am assuming good faith. Given how long you've been here. But yes. I am also saying you are deliberately being less careful when it comes to celebrities you've never heard of apparently. | |||
| ::And here. Let me spell it out for you. If the WikiProject here knows who Dyogi is, that's already an indication that he may actually be notable. ''Nationally'' notable. And let me state this very very clearly: '''I am not a fan of Dyogi.''' I don't watch his movies. I don't follow what he does (though I did google what he was up to now when I saw his name in your list, as you should have when you nominated it). I don't even watch TV anymore. But the fact that even though I don't, ''I have heard of him and know who he is'' is an indication of how notable he is nationally. It's the same thing as me telling you that you're a fan of Tarantino (assuming you aren't) just because you know his ''name''. Is that clear enough yet? I'm in the Philippines. It's a different country. We have different famous people (shocking, I know). Almost all of them are people no one would recognize even in neighboring Malaysia. "Hey I know that famous person" does not translate to "Hey, I'm a big fan of that person!" | |||
| ::Moreover, the fact that you're actually implying that my criticism here is motivated by my desire to promote these people is fucking insulting. Period. I'm not doing this because "I'm a fan of Dyogi." I'm doing this because this WikiProject thinks something is wrong with how you nominate articles for AfD. If this topic hadn't come up (I didn't start it), and if I hadn't seen the recent nomination on ] on the Philippine-related AfDs in my watchlist (I'm watching nearly 9000 pages btw), I wouldn't have even cared. I still wouldn't care, except for the general feeling of regret that the end result of these AfD runs is the reinforcement of the existing ]. | |||
| ::To get the discussion back on track. Again, does he pass ] or not? Are his works notable? Just answer that question. Regardless of the AfD results, examine what sources can be found, and what he has done. The same thing for every single nomination you've done. Because again: This. Is. Not. About. Dyogi. This is about articles of people who are demonstrably notable being deleted because no could be arsed to check. People like Gladys Reyes, as mentioned previously (and no I'm not a fan of her either, LOL). People who are already so glaringly notable in the first page of a google search even if you are NOT Filipino. | |||
| ::''So did you'' actually google your nominations? Or did you just automatically nominate him because he was one of the "identical boilerplate formatted articles about an endless series of Filipino actors, idols, singers, stars" that you can't be bothered with? What's wrong with the latter picture? | |||
| ::And lol, what's so strange about no one seeing the AfDs? How long do AfDs last? How many Filipino contributors do we have? How many of them are interested in show business? How many of them care about AfDs even? In most AfDs there are only 2 or 3 people commenting. Most of them the same people. I'm not putting down your work here, but the fact that people who can be easily ascertained to be notable are being nominated and being voted upon as a "delete" without fully examining the sources is alarming to me. And I do think it has to do with the fact that these are people they've never heard of and will never hear of ever. | |||
| ::And @], he did admit he's nominating them "by batches". While I'm not implying ], to me, it kinda seems like an admission that he is using AfDs as a gauntlet run to see who fails. And that, in turn, also implies that he doesn't check them thoroughly individually first, and instead relies on whoever sees the AfDs to tell him if they're notable or not. | |||
| ::And both of you ignore anything I said that might be construed as ]. That's not my intent. I'm still angry at the accusation of ]. -- <small>]</small><font size="3" face =times new roman>†</font><small>]</small> 03:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment'''. Disruptive is when you go wholesale AfDing even for articles that are well sourced, without even checking google first, and this attitude of I just feel like it, this person is non notable even when the articles already say they are through their sources, having to bug editors here for comments and defense because the nominator is lazy to do his own research, or to even look at the articles first. This wholesale AfDs for local Miley Cyruses have been going for a month and IMO that is disruptive. You can get the community's engagement in the first and second instances or first and second batches of AfDs. But now on its second month and the quality of AfDs still the same, you can't blame the community here for thinking this person is a troll.--] (]) 03:24, 26 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{clear}} | |||
| I have been longer than User:Rms125a@hotmail.com. Please participate in the voting to Keep or Delete in the Afd process. It may be hard to re-insert those articles for people who do deserve notability.--] (]) 06:32, 26 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == User:Naniwoofg == | |||
| ==Stalking== | |||
| Please be informed that I am being investigated for Stalking which was instigated by our good friend Rms125a@hotmail.com. Wow maybe I should keep quiet and just let our articles deleted huh? This was after making a personal appeal--which was hastily deleted-- and one day7 of keep proposals to the issues discussed above. Anyway since I'm accused of wrong doing let me open this issue here. --] (]) 01:54, 26 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :: You did engage in AFD stalking (see ). Own up, and edit and contribute productively, as I have been doing for almost a decade. ] 02:23, 26 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Is contributing productively? I've been here 11 years and then some. I've never delete on my discussion page.--] (]) 14:37, 26 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::So first you complain that no one here comments on the AfDs. And now you're accusing people of stalking when they do? *facepalm* -- <small>]</small><font size="3" face =times new roman>†</font><small>]</small> 03:54, 26 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: No. I was far happier to be honest when you all stayed out of it. However, push come to shove, when you whine about Dyogi then yeah I have to point out that no one here participated.<br> As far as @Jondel -- his contributions on the AFDs he has been stalking are either boilerplate "keep"s without any demonstration of why despite the massive evidence you all claim is right there in plain sight. In at least two cases (so far) I have requested that his contributions be stricken. In one of these, he openly acknowledged gaming the system to ensure that one of the articles is kept. I will copy and paste his exact words in a few.<br><br>. ] 13:06, 26 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::: @Obsidian Soul: perhaps you could explain offwiki to young @Jondel what is wrong with the two comments which he made that I just illustrated. In all good faith, I can say that they will do him no good and likely be used against him by other editors if he keeps making them at AFDs and other important discussions. Maraming salamat. ] 13:09, 26 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Do you actually think we know each other? Or that we're secretly conspiring to do all this? Jesus. I'm beginning to think this really is ]. Maybe we're all on Dyogi's PR team? Maybe we're all secretly actors! Maybe I'm Dyogi! And Jondel is Sharmaine! Haha. But yes. @Jondel, Mr. Rms125a@hotmail.com wishes me to tell you that that was inappropriate. The point of AfDs is to ''demonstrate'' notability. Provide links to ] or otherwise any evidence of notability. Don't attack the nominator there, no matter how lazy he is, because ]s will eat you. | |||
| {{User|Naniwoofg}} has been making problematic "update of images" in several articles. The ] image problem is just the tip of the iceberg; the user's talk page shows numerous messages regarding their problematic edits, many of the messages were from me. One example is their insistence on ] (claiming it as updated image of ]), even if the image does not properly show the sculpture as the fireworks obfuscate it and distract the intended subject of the image. They were also involved in changing ] image twice (to the images that are inferior to the currently-used infobox image). | |||
| ::::Yes. I said lazy. "I was far happier to be honest when you all stayed out of it". LOL. What happened to "I have nothing but the highest regard for Filipino people"? *whistles* Because yes, Sharmaine Arnaiz and Arespacochaga are both notable. Maybe the others are too. The fact that you haven't and won't bother trying to find out and instead place the burden on us is telling. When the nominator doesn't actually care about notability and just wants as many articles deleted as possible, there's a problem there, don't you think? Because you still haven't answered my question earlier on Dyogi (of whom I am the biggest fan of because I know his name! <sarcasm>). Is he or is he not notable? Your answer will demonstrate if you actually know the policies. You've been here longer than I have, but I'm beginning to question your overall productivity when you clearly can't be arsed to care about your nominations. -- <small>]</small><font size="3" face =times new roman>†</font><small>]</small> 18:32, 26 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| With numerous issues on images involved by this user, is it ripe to sanction this user? I'll leave the reporting of this user to ] to other users, but I hope this discussion serves as the start of multiple discussions concerning the problematic behavior of this user. <span style="font-family:Footlight MT">] <span style="background:#68FCF1">('']''|'']'')</span></span> 16:07, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| A debate is going on at the admins. Let's wait and see.--] (]) 06:26, 26 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :It seems that they have published problematic edits for several months now. I checked their contributions and saw that they had dozens of reverted edits. Most were edits that replaced images with new "good" or "high" quality images. Now, I can't check them all since they amount to more than 50 revisions, but judging by how many notices there were on their talk page, I'm a bit surprised that this user is not sanctioned yet despite this. <span style="border-radius:7px;background:#dc143c;padding:4px 6px 4px 6px;color:white;">]</span> (]) 16:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Let us assume that our good friend Mr. Rms125a@hotmail.com is doing his job. On my part I am beefing up the sources, so there should be no issues with notability. Please do participate in the voting whether it be delete or keep, since I am also being accused of being the lone 'keep' proposer. And feel free to add sources yourself. Thank you--] (]) 07:01, 26 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :This user seems to put recency at a premium. As with the Quezon Memorial Shrine example above, I've reverted his edit on ], as the photo, while still far away, may still violate FOP, and for chamber articles, the indoor photo is preferred. The indoor photo is older than most kids, but it hasn't changed from the current one, unlike the House, so it still is "recent". ] (]) 23:28, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Some of this user's recent edits now appear to involve unexplained removal of infobox images. ] (] • ]) 10:02, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Also to add, the user was involved in some attempts to use Commons images of Philippine monuments in which the monuments themselves are incidental or trivial, while at the same time removing the fair use images of the monuments (therefore risking the activation of a 1-week countdown to deletion by bots). The user does not seem to understand the reason why local and lesser quality images of such public monuments are needed, considering the Philippine law (RA 8293) not granting ] of any sort for any public objects still under copyright. Example: . _ <span style="font-family:Footlight MT">] <span style="background:#68FCF1">('']''|'']'')</span></span> 16:16, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ===Last attempt at civility=== | |||
| Before I fully descend into rage mode (I really am trying to be civil but your attitude isn't helping at all). What we're actually asking of you ] is simple: don't blanket nominate articles and expect us to do the sorting for you. Do thoroughly check all your nominations for notability even when you don't actually know or care about any of them. Only when you're really convinced that the subject is non-notable should you then nominate them. No one here is denying that there are plenty of cruft in the articles on celebrities from the Philippines. As there are everywhere else. No one here is protesting against your deletion of those either. What people here are concerned about is that you are nominating notable people as well, without prior research, purely on the basis that they are Philippine celebrities. You have acknowledged mistakes with those that some people caught as actually notable. But you refuse to acknowledge that maybe in your list of successful deletions, there are also actually notable people who were deleted because no one caught the AfDs. Refusing to do the preliminary legwork, refusing to withdraw nominations, refusing to change the way you vet your nominations when there are already valid reason pointed out on why you should NOT rely on this WikiProject to tell you on what subject is notable not. Those are the main complaints. Do you understand this? Read all of this carefully. This is not "hysteria" and this is not unreasonable. Neither is it personal. Thank you. Now I need to take a break. -- <small>]</small><font size="3" face =times new roman>†</font><small>]</small> 18:58, 26 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :I've yet one more unconstructive edit by Naniwoofg. {{U|Naniwoofg}} apparently doesn't understand the ''absence of Freedom of Panorama in the Philippines''. <span style="font-family:Footlight MT">] <span style="background:#68FCF1">('']''|'']'')</span></span> 18:37, 28 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Could I ask that we all chill? Simply vote delete or keep as you deem appropriate and as afforded by due process. Please vote by the way even if it is delete. That way it becomes obvious the article is not notable. Do not vote 'keep' just to show solidarity but do express your opinion.--] (]) 14:45, 27 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::The user has not engaged outside of edit summaries and has inconsistent ''implicit'' rationale for their image updates. What I observe is they often, but not always, insist on using higher resolution images even if the image is subjectively inferior, content/context wise] (]) 06:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::It isn't my place to comment on the AfDs currently going on at this time, but I will take the time to do so in the next few days. That said, I just seriously want to facepalm at the entire discussion above because it basically screams of patronizing behavior on the part of Rms125a@hotmail.com, as if we don't know better when in fact we do. --] <sup>(])</sup> 16:41, 28 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thank you for your participation at the Afds. It would be good to practice assuming good faith to accomodate genuine change when a person reforms. Unfortunate I feel Rms125a@hotmail.com's behaviour is a form of recidivism of his sock puppeteering.--] (]) 11:27, 30 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Are there any actions made to sanction this user, at least temporarily? They continue to do the same edits, in different articles, and some of the user's edits were reverted, like , , and . _ <span style="font-family:Footlight MT">] <span style="background:#68FCF1">('']''|'']'')</span></span> 23:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Call for event logo designs == | |||
| :Maybe reporting the socks can help? ] (]) 01:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| We are soliciting tshirt silkscreen designs for ] and ]. Please upload your designs at ] before October 10, 2015. --] (]) 07:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :He keeps insisting on edits without proper communication. Most questionable edit was in ] (obscuring the view with the fountain) and ] (night photo with the buildings) barely visible. I don't want to resort to ] but it comes to a point the this may possibly be feigned ignorance. Contentious edits on certain pages are merely said to be "updated photo or infobox" or something vague. ] (]) 11:07, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Finally raised this in ANI for something to be done. ] (]) 12:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == What do we do with the ] article? == | |||
| Here are logos of our past events: | |||
| <gallery> | |||
| File:Wp-10-philippines-sun-cmyk.png|Misplaced Pages 10th anniversary logo for the Philippines (2011) | |||
| File:WikiTakesNaga.jpg|Misplaced Pages Takes Naga logo (2012) | |||
| </gallery> | |||
| '''Edit: '''Sorry for those who were pinged on this post. I thought the article had a lot of outdated routes based on my experience of seeing buses using their old route names instead of their new ones, which prompted me to inconclusively ask whether the list of routes was outdated. Please disregard. Thank you. ] (] • ]) | |||
| :I suggest we have a single character baybayin in the design. ] (]) 02:59, 3 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Requested move at ] == | |||
| ::I think Baybayin is more associated with the Tagalog language. According to the ], the writing system is called Kul-ītan. --] (]) 03:35, 3 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ] (]) 22:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == RfC discussion at ] == | |||
| ==Iglesia ni Cristo churches== | |||
| Hi. Anyone noticed the sudden proliferation of articles on "branches" of the Iglesia ni Cristo in Metro Manila? I'm not sure these are all independently notable though. (For instance, they all look the same, well, mostly) I just worry cos there are like hundreds of them all over Metro Manila alone (See ]) and we can't possibly have an article for each and every one of them being built in the same generic style by mostly the same architect. Although the ] and its first branch in Santa Ana are notable that's for sure. Im just not sure about the rest. Pinging {{u|GretchBacayan}}, appreciate hearing from you with regards to these articles. Thanks--] (]) 01:51, 30 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| ] There is a RfC discussion at ]. I highly recommend to join to vote on this discussion to members of this WikiProject. ] ] 12:14, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Philippine FOP-related deletion nominations at Commons. == | |||
| == Requested move at ] == | |||
| Please check ] several images are being nominated due to vague Freedom of Panorama in the Philippines. Images of the Plaques/markers may be saved sinced most of them are black signs with white text with the Philippine coat of arms in it which are non-copyrighted elements some may qualify under '']''. This is why a freedom of panorama law should be defined in the Philippines. The Torre de Manila issue is just the tip of the iceberg. Meaning you can't upload photos of monuments due to vague freedom of panorama law or the lack of it. If the Rizal Monument is more recent then, an image of it can't be even uploaded for commons with or without the building behind it.] (]) 17:58, 2 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ] (]) 15:15, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Wikimedia Philippines and the Wikimedia Foundation have talked to IPO Philippines about this and their position is that the law is silent on the matter of FoP in the Philippines. Unfortunately, Commons is taking a very conservative approach here. IPO says that the only way to resolve the issue is to have a judicial case. —] (]) 04:21, 3 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment'''. I don't know if this filed by Senator ] last 29 January 2015 could pass for a Philippine FoP law. It is still pending though in the Senate Committee on Justice and Human Rights..--] (]) 05:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :* That bill won't cut it. It says nothing about copyright. —] (]) 08:52, 3 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :That's nice, but still ] is right. It only regulate non-copyright-related restrictions on photographers. For example there were reports that taking photographs of the Rizal Monument needs a permit from the management even though there is no FoP problem when taking a photography of the monument since it is in the public domain already. The proposed law only prevents security guards from harassing a casual photographer with a dslr taking photo of the monument. Leniently this could be interpreted as granting freedom of panorama rights on public places but strictly it doesn't mention the copyright of relevant photos; That taking a photo of a copyrighted works such as a building or a 3D art is not copyright infringement or a work of its own.] (]) 15:22, 3 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::You could argue though that Section 3 of said bill ''is'' a FoP provision, as it clearly states that "It is contrary to public policy to prohibit or restrict photography in public spaces, whether for private, news media, or commercial use." Because photography by default involves the capturing of images, whether copyrighted or not, it can be argued that this could be interpreted as giving photographers the right to photograph what they want unless restricted beforehand, and that by virtue of that, they can release it under whatever license they want or they can do whatever they want with the image(s) in question. While this may require interpretation by the courts, it certainly is better than nothing. --] <sup>(])</sup> 05:39, 4 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 15:15, 20 January 2025
 Main |  Discussion |  Assessment |  Requests |  Members |  Articles (Featured · New · Popular) |  Sources |  Portal |
 | This page is not a forum for general discussion about the Philippines and other Philippine-related topics. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this page. You may wish to ask factual questions about the Philippines and other Philippine-related topics at the Reference desk. Please limit all discussion to topics pertaining to this WikiProject or its pages. |
 | On 9 August 2024, it was proposed that this page be moved to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Tambayan Philippines. The result of the discussion was Not moved. |
 Archives |
|
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Pinoy Misplaced Pages on social media [REDACTED] 
This box: |
User:Naniwoofg
Naniwoofg (talk · contribs) has been making problematic "update of images" in several articles. The Taft Avenue image problem is just the tip of the iceberg; the user's talk page shows numerous messages regarding their problematic edits, many of the messages were from me. One example is their insistence on this image (claiming it as updated image of Quezon Memorial Shrine), even if the image does not properly show the sculpture as the fireworks obfuscate it and distract the intended subject of the image. They were also involved in changing Kalaw Avenue image twice (to the images that are inferior to the currently-used infobox image).
.jpg){kind=link}
With numerous issues on images involved by this user, is it ripe to sanction this user? I'll leave the reporting of this user to WP:ANI to other users, but I hope this discussion serves as the start of multiple discussions concerning the problematic behavior of this user. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:07, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- It seems that they have published problematic edits for several months now. I checked their contributions and saw that they had dozens of reverted edits. Most were edits that replaced images with new "good" or "high" quality images. Now, I can't check them all since they amount to more than 50 revisions, but judging by how many notices there were on their talk page, I'm a bit surprised that this user is not sanctioned yet despite this. AstrooKai (Talk) 16:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- This user seems to put recency at a premium. As with the Quezon Memorial Shrine example above, I've reverted his edit on Senate of the Philippines, as the photo, while still far away, may still violate FOP, and for chamber articles, the indoor photo is preferred. The indoor photo is older than most kids, but it hasn't changed from the current one, unlike the House, so it still is "recent". Howard the Duck (talk) 23:28, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Some of this user's recent edits now appear to involve unexplained removal of infobox images. Ganmatthew (talk • contribs) 10:02, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Also to add, the user was involved in some attempts to use Commons images of Philippine monuments in which the monuments themselves are incidental or trivial, while at the same time removing the fair use images of the monuments (therefore risking the activation of a 1-week countdown to deletion by bots). The user does not seem to understand the reason why local and lesser quality images of such public monuments are needed, considering the Philippine law (RA 8293) not granting Freedom of Panorama of any sort for any public objects still under copyright. Example: this one concerning the Statue of the Sentinel of Freedom. _ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:16, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- I've yet reverted one more unconstructive edit by Naniwoofg. Naniwoofg apparently doesn't understand the absence of Freedom of Panorama in the Philippines. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:37, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- The user has not engaged outside of edit summaries and has inconsistent implicit rationale for their image updates. What I observe is they often, but not always, insist on using higher resolution images even if the image is subjectively inferior, content/context wiseHariboneagle927 (talk) 06:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Are there any actions made to sanction this user, at least temporarily? They continue to do the same edits, in different articles, and some of the user's edits were reverted, like this, this, and this. _ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Maybe reporting the socks can help? Howard the Duck (talk) 01:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- He keeps insisting on edits without proper communication. Most questionable edit was in Bonifacio Shrine (obscuring the view with the fountain) and Escolta Street (night photo with the buildings) barely visible. I don't want to resort to WP:BADFAITH but it comes to a point the this may possibly be feigned ignorance. Contentious edits on certain pages are merely said to be "updated photo or infobox" or something vague. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 11:07, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Finally raised this in ANI for something to be done. Borgenland (talk) 12:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
What do we do with the List of bus routes in Metro Manila article?
Edit: Sorry for those who were pinged on this post. I thought the article had a lot of outdated routes based on my experience of seeing buses using their old route names instead of their new ones, which prompted me to inconclusively ask whether the list of routes was outdated. Please disregard. Thank you. Ganmatthew (talk • contribs)
Requested move at Talk:Philippine Offshore Gaming Operator#Requested move 13 January 2025
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Philippine Offshore Gaming Operator#Requested move 13 January 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. HueMan1 (talk) 22:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
RfC discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Tambayan Philippines/Sources#RfC: LionhearTV
There is a RfC discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Tambayan Philippines/Sources#RfC: LionhearTV. I highly recommend to join to vote on this discussion to members of this WikiProject. Royiswariii Talk! 12:14, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:St. Francis Square#Requested move 13 January 2025
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:St. Francis Square#Requested move 13 January 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 15:15, 20 January 2025 (UTC)