User talk:Howard the Duck/Archive9

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

It will look exactly the same, but be shorter in the edit window and therefore easier to work around, if you change it to

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 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 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 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
Thanks for uploading Image:2006 EDSA Shrine grab.JPG. However, the image is missing a fair use rationale. Please read carefully the instructions at 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 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 at 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. Goodnight mush 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> Goodnight mush 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:

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 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 or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. 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:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see 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:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

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 Media copyright questions. 13:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Smile


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)