User talk:Efe/Archive 11
 | This page 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. |
Cats
Hi! May I ask you where I can find that it is to prefer to list all categories in alphabetical order? I saw that you have sorted them alphabetically and I have been interested for a long time where it is written to do so. Thanks in advance and kind regards Doma-w (talk) 14:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
- Hello Doma-w. You can find the main cats here: Category:Main topic classifications. If you want specific cats, just click on the related link then it will provide you more specific cats. Anything else you want to ask? --Efe (talk) 08:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- Hi! Thanks for your answer. I saw that you have sorted the cats alphabetically for this article: [1]. So I was intersted where I can find the consensus to sort cats alphabetically. Kind regards Doma-w (talk) 09:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, sorry I did not catch your point. Actually, I dont know where to find them, but I am sure there is no guideline for it. However, I saw lots of bots or users doing it and for me, its a way of reducing mess. --Efe (talk) 09:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- Hi! Thanks for your answer. I saw that you have sorted the cats alphabetically for this article: [1]. So I was intersted where I can find the consensus to sort cats alphabetically. Kind regards Doma-w (talk) 09:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Cookie
II MusLiM HyBRiD II (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
--II MusLiM HyBRiD II (talk) 14:41, 11 July 2008
User vandalism
User: Jamalar continues to change legal quotes and remove sections from articles such as, Love. Angel. Music. Baby and The Sweet Escape. I warned the user, but he/she continues to do so. An adminstrator needs to speak with the user. Charmed36 (talk) 14:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
User: Jamalar continues to remove sections and he insulted me. When I said I would report him, he made rude remarks. Can you speak to an administrator? He should be blocked for a week as a lesson. Charmed36 (talk) 18:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
The insult is on the Love. Angel. Music. Baby. and on my talk page. Charmed36 (talk) 18:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC) Charmed36 (talk) 18:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- I left templates on the user's talk page. If he'll continue doing unconstructive edits and attacking you, I'll report him outrightly. --Efe (talk) 03:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Fairness and respect
I replied to your message:[2]. I had spent 8 hours daily and worked hard to contribute well to Wiki. Now, under adoption by Terrier, I had never been rebuked much less often corrected by my parent. I read your "perhaps" to stop me and Max editing? This is a sad day for Wikipedia. Since I and Max had been discussing our conflicts in the Terrier page, and there is no conclusion yet. I respectfully submit that out of respect to my parent, let us go through the process of giving Digent Terrier a chance to pen his conclusion. As he promised soon.--Florentino floro (talk) 09:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- Sir, please read between the lines. That's why I commented like that to avoid further "conflict". If you are having COI and still continuing editing the article, most likely, a conflict will never stop. PS. Sorry, I failed to comment on the page because I haven't read the diff's of Max's and your edits. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 09:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, and I replied there, in my page with added message here, to clarify.
- (Here is the reply) Thanks. Precisely, as you see, first I invited you, then, to be fair to all, you remained neutral and helped edit the article. Then, from that time, I never edited the article. Cheers. By the way, please notify Filipino editors, about the GMA-7 top news I viewed last night, where UST Dean prohibited UST students from using Wikipedia and other online Internet sources, due to easy to edit, thing. He on behalf of UST issued the statement that only hard copies of books with authors would be accepted as thesis. I am looking for this, but you can check. Wiki is reliable unlike Wikipinas since, there are scanners here, and this is the best example, I myself could not edit my own article Florentino Floro, and this Davide article, which is now on the process. Good luck.--Florentino floro (talk) 09:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- This edit does not warrants Max's claim that there was a COI. A COI usually occurs when your edit was reverted then you add it again then the other reverted it again, usually because of non-neutral edits. BTW, you cannot petition for a user to be blocked because of, for instance, the alleged "COI". Cheers. --Efe (talk) 11:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks so much. With all due respect, to both of you editors. The Hilario Davide, Jr. appointment as UN permanent representative, is governed by this: "Section 16. The President shall nominate and, with the consent of the Commission on Appointments, appoint the heads of the executive departments, ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, or officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain, and other officers whose appointments are vested in him in this Constitution. He shall also appoint all other officers of the Government whose appointments are not otherwise provided for by law, and those whom he may be authorized by law to appoint. The Congress may, by law, vest the appointment of other officers lower in rank in the President alone, in the courts, or in the heads of departments, agencies, commissions, or boards. The President shall have the power to make appointments during the recess of the Congress, whether voluntary or compulsory, but such appointments shall be effective only until disapproved by the Commission on Appointments or until the next adjournment of Congress. - THE 1987 CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES ARTICLE VII EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT[3] Even Philippine high school and college students teach this matter. First, Davide was twice appointed during session and was twice by-passed, since Jinggoy Estrada invoked Sec. 20, Senate Rules. Second, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo used the last part of the cited fundamental law, to let Davide hold office and get P 1.8 million a month salary: by appointing him "ad interim", that is, when Congress is in recess or not in session. Davide's term therefore expired already since when Congress adjourned. So, now Davide is no longer incumbent UN Permanent representative, unless the President will issue an appointment before July 23, when Congress resumes session. If she does appoint Davide after July 23, then, Davide, cannot hold office nor get salary, until he is confirmed by Senate COA, and he cannot because of J. Estrada. IN FINE, Davide is no longer incumbent UN representative. FOR this reason, I asked RFC and invited Efe, etc. to take a second look on the matter.--Florentino floro (talk) 07:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- I still think there was COI. It seems to me that in general, editors should be extremely careful when adding their own names to wikipedia pages, as Florentino Floro did in that very edit. I would also point out that he renamed the section "controversy" from "UN representative". In doing doing so, he insinuates that Davide's post is controversial. Yet the only evidence for it being controversial is a lawsuit that Floro filed and that the courts found to be without merit. Can you explain to me how Floro does not have a conflict of interest? maxsch (talk) 21:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- As aptly and tersely explained above, the post of Davide is not controversial. It is a highly coveted post, issued only to retired Justices, Presidents, etc. Davide, ceased to be a UN Representative upon adjournment of our Congress, which will only resume on July 23. As gleaned from the above, there is no COI, since all the links pointed to establish the fact that Davide was cleared from 2 disbarment cases, and he assumed office, got the P 1.8 million salary per month, but ceased in office upon Congress' adjournment. Readers will be confused that Davide is still the UN Representative. There must be a new or fresh appointment from PGMA.--Florentino floro (talk) 07:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Per 100 recent edits in the Hilario Davide, Jr. article, Floro only edited once.I see this edit substantial although there are minor trimmings/merging needed.You only visited once in the article and reverted once and it does not warrant a COI. Also, your summary should not be in that manner.If ever you disliked parts of his edit, a message on the talk page would have been better. Cheers. --Efe (talk) 00:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)- Thanks for the succinct rectification of the matter. Cheers.--Florentino floro (talk) 07:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- Cheers? I'm not sure how number of edits relates to Conflict of Interest (you do know what COI stands for don't you?). A non-neutral edit in a subject the editor is personally involved in is COI. It is as simple as that. It doesn't matter if it is the first time or not. I was not asking that Floro be blocked, I was explaining why I reverted his edit. Therefore it does belong in the edit summary. maxsch (talk) 14:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the succinct rectification of the matter. Cheers.--Florentino floro (talk) 07:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- As aptly and tersely explained above, the post of Davide is not controversial. It is a highly coveted post, issued only to retired Justices, Presidents, etc. Davide, ceased to be a UN Representative upon adjournment of our Congress, which will only resume on July 23. As gleaned from the above, there is no COI, since all the links pointed to establish the fact that Davide was cleared from 2 disbarment cases, and he assumed office, got the P 1.8 million salary per month, but ceased in office upon Congress' adjournment. Readers will be confused that Davide is still the UN Representative. There must be a new or fresh appointment from PGMA.--Florentino floro (talk) 07:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- I still think there was COI. It seems to me that in general, editors should be extremely careful when adding their own names to wikipedia pages, as Florentino Floro did in that very edit. I would also point out that he renamed the section "controversy" from "UN representative". In doing doing so, he insinuates that Davide's post is controversial. Yet the only evidence for it being controversial is a lawsuit that Floro filed and that the courts found to be without merit. Can you explain to me how Floro does not have a conflict of interest? maxsch (talk) 21:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks so much. With all due respect, to both of you editors. The Hilario Davide, Jr. appointment as UN permanent representative, is governed by this: "Section 16. The President shall nominate and, with the consent of the Commission on Appointments, appoint the heads of the executive departments, ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, or officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain, and other officers whose appointments are vested in him in this Constitution. He shall also appoint all other officers of the Government whose appointments are not otherwise provided for by law, and those whom he may be authorized by law to appoint. The Congress may, by law, vest the appointment of other officers lower in rank in the President alone, in the courts, or in the heads of departments, agencies, commissions, or boards. The President shall have the power to make appointments during the recess of the Congress, whether voluntary or compulsory, but such appointments shall be effective only until disapproved by the Commission on Appointments or until the next adjournment of Congress. - THE 1987 CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES ARTICLE VII EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT[3] Even Philippine high school and college students teach this matter. First, Davide was twice appointed during session and was twice by-passed, since Jinggoy Estrada invoked Sec. 20, Senate Rules. Second, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo used the last part of the cited fundamental law, to let Davide hold office and get P 1.8 million a month salary: by appointing him "ad interim", that is, when Congress is in recess or not in session. Davide's term therefore expired already since when Congress adjourned. So, now Davide is no longer incumbent UN Permanent representative, unless the President will issue an appointment before July 23, when Congress resumes session. If she does appoint Davide after July 23, then, Davide, cannot hold office nor get salary, until he is confirmed by Senate COA, and he cannot because of J. Estrada. IN FINE, Davide is no longer incumbent UN representative. FOR this reason, I asked RFC and invited Efe, etc. to take a second look on the matter.--Florentino floro (talk) 07:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- This edit does not warrants Max's claim that there was a COI. A COI usually occurs when your edit was reverted then you add it again then the other reverted it again, usually because of non-neutral edits. BTW, you cannot petition for a user to be blocked because of, for instance, the alleged "COI". Cheers. --Efe (talk) 11:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry. I stand corrected. But you should not revert it. I see parts of his edits containing his name, which, sorry Sir. Floro, a no-no in Wiki. However, there are parts that are substantial and could have been "constructive" in part of the article. Instead, you should have deleted parts of it which you believe a COI. Cheers again. =) --Efe (talk) 03:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Terrier already ruled, and dismissed my petition to block Max
Terrier said: Further, you also complain about criticism of your edits. Know that every editor has the right to criticize an editor; you cannot expect to ask for a user to be banned (or "BANNED" as you put it), and then not get any criticism on yourself. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 14:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[4] --Florentino floro (talk) 09:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Wiki reliability
Regarding this issue, teachers in UST and UP really do not allow their students to use/cite WikiPedia as their source. While we (you and me) believe that Wiki is reliable, WikiPedia has its disclaimer that will drive others to not rely at all. I actually raised this issue last year in TAMBAY. --Efe (talk) 11:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- In thesis, of course, they are correct. But in legal briefs, memoranda, court judgments, oh! Wiki is very rich as far as legal articles or judgments are concerned. State of the art. They can be cited in our SCRA. I don't know in science journals here. But the bio's of notable persons like Puno, can be cited in speeches. Schools are schools. They want their books to be bought. Ateneo, UP, UST, their Press is not competitive, since they force their students to buy books from their press. With Wiki online and internet onlines now, students rarely buy books for research, or thesis. This is my fight against WikiPinas babies. They are so unreliable, and the ads of Vibal's books to be bought... Who would cite WPinas? But Wikipedia, I bet, the Justices are the ones first using these in decisions. How much do justices now DO NOT HAVE TO SPEND for ALR, AM JUR, and CJS? (Each volume is $ 100+, and our SCRA is P 1,000+ Just open Wiki decisions of USA and bingo. There is no need to type but just copy paste from Wiki PDF in the links. I use Wiki legal articles for my memo, and I open the original PDF USA decision based on Wiki external links. In our court decisions, just open Supreme Court of the Philippines, go the the Ext. Link, open [www.supremecourt.gov.ph] you have the full decision, no need to buy SCRA. Wikipedia is reliable.--Florentino floro (talk) 11:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- We cannot really force them from the fact that we have a disclaimer. Its a challenge to us to further improve the project. Whatever they opine/claim about the site, just say, {{Citation needed}}. =) --Efe (talk) 12:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- Well, this is the first in Philippine education history that "just" a section of a (UST) school (of course UST College of Law would not) did issue a school circular and policy from using Wikipedia as source in subjects. I am new here in Wiki, and did not, yet, find any school here in Philippines and worldwide which did issue the same policy. At any rate, statistics cannot be disregarded, that, (because of Wikipedia's candid and straightforward notes/explanations of its reliability) 80% of Philippine and worldwide English/American schools, use Wikipedia English for research. --Florentino floro (talk) 07:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- Let me add, that because of Wikipedia very scholarly written articles on USA recent and old USA decision since C.J. John Jay to C.J. John G. Roberts, jurists, lawyers and law students worldwide are spared, from buying ALR, AmJur, CJS, etc. I would say, there is nothing for Wikipedia to improve in the realm of legal articles. (Most recent SCRA decision by top Philippine Justices, source Wikipedia as most valuable tool in drafting Philippine decisions. Antonio Carpio started e-library (2005) using for sure Wiki. --Florentino floro (talk) 07:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- Well, this is the first in Philippine education history that "just" a section of a (UST) school (of course UST College of Law would not) did issue a school circular and policy from using Wikipedia as source in subjects. I am new here in Wiki, and did not, yet, find any school here in Philippines and worldwide which did issue the same policy. At any rate, statistics cannot be disregarded, that, (because of Wikipedia's candid and straightforward notes/explanations of its reliability) 80% of Philippine and worldwide English/American schools, use Wikipedia English for research. --Florentino floro (talk) 07:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- We cannot really force them from the fact that we have a disclaimer. Its a challenge to us to further improve the project. Whatever they opine/claim about the site, just say, {{Citation needed}}. =) --Efe (talk) 12:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- In thesis, of course, they are correct. But in legal briefs, memoranda, court judgments, oh! Wiki is very rich as far as legal articles or judgments are concerned. State of the art. They can be cited in our SCRA. I don't know in science journals here. But the bio's of notable persons like Puno, can be cited in speeches. Schools are schools. They want their books to be bought. Ateneo, UP, UST, their Press is not competitive, since they force their students to buy books from their press. With Wiki online and internet onlines now, students rarely buy books for research, or thesis. This is my fight against WikiPinas babies. They are so unreliable, and the ads of Vibal's books to be bought... Who would cite WPinas? But Wikipedia, I bet, the Justices are the ones first using these in decisions. How much do justices now DO NOT HAVE TO SPEND for ALR, AM JUR, and CJS? (Each volume is $ 100+, and our SCRA is P 1,000+ Just open Wiki decisions of USA and bingo. There is no need to type but just copy paste from Wiki PDF in the links. I use Wiki legal articles for my memo, and I open the original PDF USA decision based on Wiki external links. In our court decisions, just open Supreme Court of the Philippines, go the the Ext. Link, open [www.supremecourt.gov.ph] you have the full decision, no need to buy SCRA. Wikipedia is reliable.--Florentino floro (talk) 11:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of How Wikipedia Works
A tag has been placed on How Wikipedia Works, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as the Wikipedia:Business' FAQ for more information.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Minkythecat (talk) 13:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
Hi, Efe. I take now a fair look upon Max, when I opened this:[5]Mt Pangasugan Max asked me to create the article, since Max noticed my Skink contribution. I never say no to any editor here, for I find it honor to be asked to create a very good article. It is just that I was in my darkest time in Wiki with the painful or unsuccessful creation of coconut articles (healing oil, charcoal) since I could'nt find good/verifiable links, until admin. Rikto compassionately re-directed my works. Also, I had problems with News inputs and health sections I added. I admit my shortcommings, at that time, not because I do not know Wiki rules, but: at that time, I had been posting and replying to 120-140 forums. It was nightmare.
- So, I politely replied to Max, that if only I could research at Ateneo and UP libraries at OPAC, I would. But I feared that if I would create Mt Pangasugan, then, I might be bombarded with copyright and no source violations. And I could not find links on this mystic In fairness, to Max, I found it apt to update Hilario Davide, Jr. since, July 23 SONA and opening of Congress comes. If Davide is appointed before, he assumes office, but if after, then he does not, as 2 times before. The big thing is: as of now, CURRENT, Davide ceases to be a UN Representative. Like this: I edited yesterday:Shariff Kabunsuan, by [6](8-6) vote, this province is OUT OF THE MAP. So, I hope Max could find the reason why I edited Davide. There is really no COI, since it is legal but encyclopedic update, considering that it is of FIRST IMPRESSION in UN Rep. appointment, never happened before. Really notable if not landmark. Thanks. and With due respect.
- Wikipedia Featured Article contributors | Wikipedia Good Article contributors | you're great, I do not have this. And I copied your:Wikipedians with pictures--Florentino floro (talk) 06:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- Sir, your almost welcome. I know your user page will be categorized the way mine is. Focus on one article before going to another and, ping!, you'll have one. --Efe (talk) 07:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- I do agree. Good luck. It's beerness Fry day again. Can't forget this Olot, Tolosa and Leyte San Juanico Bridge (on April 1998 Good Friday, I was warned at 12 noon, while I was predicting Erap's presidency and fate, the taxi driver showed me the waters, oh eerie, with silent waves, where actor Dante Varona allegedly jumped and bled - with blood. It's so powerful. Visit the bridge, it's the 2nd longest in Asia, and expand the article, if you may.--Florentino floro (talk) 07:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I deleted that section because the article is about love.angel.music.baby not nelly furtado. The album did not make an impact on albums of today. That is an OPINION.
Nelly Furtado was not inspired by gwen stefnai to go urban. because one, nelly furtado did not say that in the source. nelly furtado said hip hop was "the first music that was mine," NO WHERE did she mention that gwen stefani inspired her to do urban music and two, gwen stefani isnt urban. Third the fergie comparrisons are also just an opinion. by saying that the chola girls fergie has are like Gwens harajuku girls. and fergie has denied being influenced by gwen stfeani in the sources.
Fergie and nelly furtado have got nothing to do with gwens album. thats why im deleting it. and charmed36 has insulted me on occasions too btw. (but i dont care about that) and i am not attaking charmed36. Why do you just assume that he's not in the wrong? This is really not fair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamalar (talk • contribs) 15:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Cropping images
Is it considered to be your own work if you crop an image from a non-free image? e.g. If you crop out an image of a singer from the cover of one of their albums. Could this be considered a form of copyright infringment (if you were to upload it to wikipedia claiming it as your own work), and if so what are the consequences? Thank you. JayJ47 (talk) 00:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, good morning. Cropped copyrighted images remain copyrighted. --Efe (talk) 00:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Hey please create PI Decisions Infobox
I created ths Sema v. Comelec[7] patterned after Wikipedia USA decisions articles Baze v. Rees. I love blue, but am stupid, not knowing how to create that. Please note that there is no Infobox like what Wiki editors created nicely. Our Category:Philippine law has none. Cheers. --Florentino floro (talk) 11:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- You want to add a proper infobox for that article? The former is using the template {{Infobox SCOTUS case}}. Just copy the code their and fill in. --Efe (talk) 11:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- (Copied) Thanks, I was using the USA, but failed, I will try later. --Florentino floro (talk) 11:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
User RFC for florentino floro
I have created an RFC for Florentino floro. [8] I would appreciate it if you would take a look. thanks maxsch (talk) 18:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- Was the dispute between the two of you remain unresolved? --Efe (talk) 03:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- It will be, in time, with your enlightenment. Please share some thoughts there, on how both of us can contribute more quality edits to Wikipedia: of course, I do not have any illusion of emulating you, who had created featured and good articles.
- (Note: Sorry for my persistence, in this template. In USA, from the time Wikipedia was created, USA Wiki editors regularly created articles on USA Court Decisions - aside from mere stubs. Here, there was none, until I saw the USA decision and patterned Sema v. Comelec. I hope that, since you have Filipino editors friends out here, you can collaborate with them, to make the VERY FIRST template on the 2nd Philippine decision to be created here. It can be used for all future articles. In fact, we do not have a Category for this, except Category:Philippine law. We only have one: Subic rape case, which is not even a decision, since it is pending review and it is a mere story; I am tempted to use the taxonomy template of biology articles here, but might be too poor...). Regards. --Florentino floro (talk) 05:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Greetings
Hello! This is the first that I encountered this: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Florentino floro[9] . I am not pretty sure, when and how, I will respond. So, if the pending User:Diligent Terrier/Florentino floro and Maxschmelling (created on 18:38, 18 May 2008 by Diligent Terrier), works like this, as far as the procedure of replying and argument/discussions, then, I cordially invited some Filipino and foreign editors or users, here, to share their views on the matter, as maxsch, also did invite. Hence, I sent messages of invitations to users/admins who had posted in my own talk pages/archives, and who might be familiar with the debate: Filipinos - User:Efe, User talk:Rizalninoynapoleon, User talk:Kguirnela, User talk:Ianlopez1115, User talk:Titopao; and non-Filipinos User talk:NanohaA'sYuri, User talk:Vivio Testarossa, User talk:Andreasegde, User talk:Viriditas, User talk:BanyanTree, User talk:Royalbroil, User talk:John Carter, User talk:Algabal, User talk:FisherQueen, User talk:Rkitko, User talk:BanyanTree, User talk:Royalbroil, User:Diligent Terrier, my parent.
Question
Should I respond in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Florentino floro after a while, and after some or most of these invited users had filed comment? Or, should I reply now or next day? Please enlighten me. Thanks.--Florentino floro (talk) 06:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- Maybe it would be better to comment after them. I thought your dispute was already resolved. --Efe (talk) 07:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. Let us keep our fingers crossed. You can keep an eye on this historic predatory apology, and contribute there too:World Youth Day 2008 - [10]. Same shocking things here in Wiki editing, as I added in Eliseo Soriano, and Roman Catholic Archdioceses of San Diego & LA, the $ 2 Billion 1954-2008 payoff settlement for foreskins (in many forums I registered]], I alerted non-Wikipedians, that, if these foreskins would be made into Mcforburgers, it could feed hungry stomachs here and worldwide for 20 years. Huge amount thrown our due to predators. Cheers, Pope Ben!
- Parenthetically, the predators of Wikipedia, who denounced it as unreliable source in school research, might now think twice. There are very good USA legal - decisions articles (and your featured - good articles, I envy), which cannot just be brushed aside. Crab mentality (really of some school leaders in dire conspiracy against Wikipedia, to save their book publishing empires, (read between the lines) here, disgusting, and they never appreciate, how we painfully contribute, here, amid my/this Wiki landmark user conflict). --Florentino floro (talk) 07:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. Let us keep our fingers crossed. You can keep an eye on this historic predatory apology, and contribute there too:World Youth Day 2008 - [10]. Same shocking things here in Wiki editing, as I added in Eliseo Soriano, and Roman Catholic Archdioceses of San Diego & LA, the $ 2 Billion 1954-2008 payoff settlement for foreskins (in many forums I registered]], I alerted non-Wikipedians, that, if these foreskins would be made into Mcforburgers, it could feed hungry stomachs here and worldwide for 20 years. Huge amount thrown our due to predators. Cheers, Pope Ben!
Response
Was the dispute between the two of you remain unresolved? --Efe (talk) 03:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- If you mean the dispute that user:Diligent Terrier hosted, yes, it remains unresolved. Diligent said he would write some conclusion, but he has not done so and is now semi-retired. He suggested the RFC as a means of finding resolution. maxsch (talk) 18:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- It was, due to so-called (borrowing legal parlance) lack of cause of action (because of failure to attach certified copies of the Orders appealed). While I am not as of this point of time, at liberty, to divulge the real reasons behind this conflict, debate and perturbation discussions with Max, suffice it to say that - in Vatican and Queen Beatrix, Yahoo's expose shocked the world, that, these 2's computers edited Wiki articles to delete immorality and negative edits by Wiki editors, leading to reverting, etc.
- I am not saying that Max is a dummy of some high officials or psychic professionals in Metro Manila, but in due course, and in the proper Wiki forum, I will submit my well-kept evidence. I believe Wikipedia rules and policies are fair and editors and admins are open to receive evidence on Wikipedia being used[11] as vehicle for prior censorship(free speech) clause. Tersely put by User:Andreasegde - --Florentino floro (talk) 08:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)"The page seems to have been created by a lynch mob (Extrajudicial punishment) ...BTW, "Though occasionally news is useful, too often..." seems to sum up the whole sorry mess, as Maxsch actually agrees with Floro (but only when the user wants to). "I think it would make sense to have a period of time where Floro would only make 3 edits per day" is shocking, as it suggests control over another person. Not actually blocking, you understand, but control. "a menace to wikipedia" is too much; Floro made an edit about eggplant, for goodness sake. Since when have eggplants been the subject of so much controversy?" May I add this succint[12]philosophy of editing in Wiki. Triple cheers.--Florentino floro (talk) 08:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
- Sir, I was really shocked when Max created that RFC page. I asked him, however, he only said that Diligent failed to conclude the RFC you filed. BTW, whats the barnstar for? --Efe (talk) 08:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
- (Copied) I myself, had a difficulty even if I twice read the rules on RFC. Wiki rules and policies are edited by Wiki editors. More often than not, it is very very difficult even for us jurists to comprehend the rules. Another point, on the template, I found it hard to learn the template of USA decisions. It is not copy paste.
- (Copied) No, it is not barnstar, it is an image, since I believe, that with only 5,000 edits, and not even knowing how to archive, not knowing how to use twinkle, I am yet a poor editor (good maybe in legal and foreign easy articles, but ignorant of IT), and not worthy to give barnstars, even if I believe in them. --Florentino floro (talk) 08:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
- (Copied) You'll learn tomorrow if you'll read Wiki "how-to"s today. Hehe. FYI, I don't know how to use twinkle also but I rather not learn them at all. Some tools are not user friendly, very disgusting on the edit page. =) --Efe (talk) 08:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
- If only I can time travel and be back in Tacloban, Olot,Tolosa.[13][14] Max is not in any manner against my editing news, not notable edits, and tons of alleged Wiki edit violations. These are just covers-accusations, to hide Max's real agenda: Max is used by a principal/s (like Vatican and Queen Beatrix, I edited), to prevent me from contributing to Max's listed Philippine-related articles, which were selected my Max principals. The end result is: Filipino editors here and foreign editors are being disturbed and used to read tons of Wiki rules to examine my Wiki faults. Max's aim (User:Cma) is to politely order me not to add to Secret Philippine articles (so he said only 3 edits per day) which would make the same neutral, that is, I must not add encyclopedic edits which would balance the article, for example, health, etc. Queen Beatrix did the same, on deleting the immorality add by a Wiki editor. But as trial lawyer and 6 months judge, I had been used to trials, debates, garbages, and even guns and fist fights in court. Now, some editors here, would now seem to discover, that Max should be IGNORED. But as neutral Wiki editor, I am ready to discuss and submit my evidence. Thanks, for understanding deeply this very hard case with cryptology. You can email me or chat for details, which are not allowed here, due to TLDR.
- Oh, the barnstar is just an image. At this time, I state with certainty, that I am not yet worthy to give any editor with barnstar, since, I do not even know how to archive my own talk pages, and to use twinkle, how to revert, and to make a good or featured article. If ever I would succeed, I will start giving barns. I just give you my peace image animation, my favorite.[15][16]--Florentino floro (talk) 09:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
- By the way: Secret ha! my former parent is presently applying for Admin and coaching, so, that is the reason he resigned. It is understandable, Ian wants to race with The Coffee and Lenticel. Maybe Ian must be more cute to be racing with Coffee and Lenticel. Vote for Ian to be Admin ha![17]--Florentino floro (talk) 09:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, the barnstar is just an image. At this time, I state with certainty, that I am not yet worthy to give any editor with barnstar, since, I do not even know how to archive my own talk pages, and to use twinkle, how to revert, and to make a good or featured article. If ever I would succeed, I will start giving barns. I just give you my peace image animation, my favorite.[15][16]--Florentino floro (talk) 09:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
- If only I can time travel and be back in Tacloban, Olot,Tolosa.[13][14] Max is not in any manner against my editing news, not notable edits, and tons of alleged Wiki edit violations. These are just covers-accusations, to hide Max's real agenda: Max is used by a principal/s (like Vatican and Queen Beatrix, I edited), to prevent me from contributing to Max's listed Philippine-related articles, which were selected my Max principals. The end result is: Filipino editors here and foreign editors are being disturbed and used to read tons of Wiki rules to examine my Wiki faults. Max's aim (User:Cma) is to politely order me not to add to Secret Philippine articles (so he said only 3 edits per day) which would make the same neutral, that is, I must not add encyclopedic edits which would balance the article, for example, health, etc. Queen Beatrix did the same, on deleting the immorality add by a Wiki editor. But as trial lawyer and 6 months judge, I had been used to trials, debates, garbages, and even guns and fist fights in court. Now, some editors here, would now seem to discover, that Max should be IGNORED. But as neutral Wiki editor, I am ready to discuss and submit my evidence. Thanks, for understanding deeply this very hard case with cryptology. You can email me or chat for details, which are not allowed here, due to TLDR.
- (Copied) You'll learn tomorrow if you'll read Wiki "how-to"s today. Hehe. FYI, I don't know how to use twinkle also but I rather not learn them at all. Some tools are not user friendly, very disgusting on the edit page. =) --Efe (talk) 08:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
- (Copied) No, it is not barnstar, it is an image, since I believe, that with only 5,000 edits, and not even knowing how to archive, not knowing how to use twinkle, I am yet a poor editor (good maybe in legal and foreign easy articles, but ignorant of IT), and not worthy to give barnstars, even if I believe in them. --Florentino floro (talk) 08:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
- (Copied) I myself, had a difficulty even if I twice read the rules on RFC. Wiki rules and policies are edited by Wiki editors. More often than not, it is very very difficult even for us jurists to comprehend the rules. Another point, on the template, I found it hard to learn the template of USA decisions. It is not copy paste.
- Sir, I was really shocked when Max created that RFC page. I asked him, however, he only said that Diligent failed to conclude the RFC you filed. BTW, whats the barnstar for? --Efe (talk) 08:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
- I am not saying that Max is a dummy of some high officials or psychic professionals in Metro Manila, but in due course, and in the proper Wiki forum, I will submit my well-kept evidence. I believe Wikipedia rules and policies are fair and editors and admins are open to receive evidence on Wikipedia being used[11] as vehicle for prior censorship(free speech) clause. Tersely put by User:Andreasegde - --Florentino floro (talk) 08:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)"The page seems to have been created by a lynch mob (Extrajudicial punishment) ...BTW, "Though occasionally news is useful, too often..." seems to sum up the whole sorry mess, as Maxsch actually agrees with Floro (but only when the user wants to). "I think it would make sense to have a period of time where Floro would only make 3 edits per day" is shocking, as it suggests control over another person. Not actually blocking, you understand, but control. "a menace to wikipedia" is too much; Floro made an edit about eggplant, for goodness sake. Since when have eggplants been the subject of so much controversy?" May I add this succint[12]philosophy of editing in Wiki. Triple cheers.--Florentino floro (talk) 08:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
![[15]](http://s226.photobucket.com/albums/dd249/judgefloro/?action=view¤t=3.jpg){kind=link}
![[16]](http://s226.photobucket.com/albums/dd249/judgefloro/?action=view¤t=8.jpg){kind=link}
RFC
Hi Efe, you said above that it would be better to wait for Diligent Terrier's conclusion. I want to clarify, it was Diligent Terrier himself who suggested that I post an RFC as way to resolve the dispute. I waited a long time for his conclusion and none ever came. For too long, Floro has kept up an unhelpful kind of editing, and it has continued because people choose to ignore the problems. It is obvious to anyone who looks closely at his edits that he doesn't understand wikipedia. For a while I tried to help him, but I grew frustrated when he refused to listen to me. But I am not just going to walk away and let him continue to screw up wikipedia. maxsch (talk) 14:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Request for clarification
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Florentino floro was deleted on "00:32, 20 July 2008 by Wizardman (Talk | contribs)-("Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Florentino floro" (two people have not certified basis for dispute within 48 hours).
- I respectfully quote the rules: "In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 21:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 00:32, 16 May 2024 (UTC)."
- The page, after having been deleted by the administrator was restored, with only ONE certification and endorsement:"Users certifying the basis for this disputeUsers who tried and failed to resolve the dispute.:#TheCoffee (talk) 08:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
- My question, please: Are not, 2 endorsers required, lest fatal deletion results? Since, after 48 hours, now, more than, per math computation, if I am not mistaken, no 2nd required certification was posted. So, must the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Florentino floro remain or be deleted. Respectfully submitted, awaiting your kind comment. Thanks.--Florentino floro (talk) 10:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
- The page, after having been deleted by the administrator was restored, with only ONE certification and endorsement:"Users certifying the basis for this disputeUsers who tried and failed to resolve the dispute.:#TheCoffee (talk) 08:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Amazing so fast contributions
I just happened to accidentally browse on your contributions, and I was amazed how fast and diligent you can contribute. I myself, started today at around 11:45 am and now it's 9:10 pm, and I only did 21 edits. Just asking how do you do it so fast? I spent 1 full hour for just one edit on the Pope.
- Those are WikiHousekeeping like fixing this and fixing that. Me as well slows down when focusing on one article, like editing and adding contents. =) --Efe (talk) 03:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- (Copied) These housekeepings makes me lazy and I desire to edit- focus on one article for 2 hours. --Florentino floro (talk) 08:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- Those are WikiHousekeeping like fixing this and fixing that. Me as well slows down when focusing on one article, like editing and adding contents. =) --Efe (talk) 03:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- By the way, please check this Sema v. Comelec, I did but said it is just temporary, since I lousily used the ordinary template, and I want this Kennedy v. Louisiana. We must have a template for this, since we have court decisions. Subic rape case and Pimentel III vs. Zubiri Senate Electoral Protest are not Phil decisions but legal articles. Mine is the very first here in Phil. on this and there is no category on Phil Decisions unlike in USA.
- There might be no end, to our Max conflict, since the IP Address is from India, Bombai, that Max admitted and asked for apology. I was frontpaged there on April 7, 2006, in Mumbai Mirror, now it is a dead link. So Max used that IP, to reveal to me the immense spiritual battle that is hidden.[18]
- By the way this is very useful to discover the IP Address, just discovered this today from a Malolos technician, I wanna share it with you, so that when an IP address posts in Wiki we can scan it. So, I quote this:
- "This is direly important in this discussion, since Max admitted per research that Max replied from India, Bombai. Lookup IP Address:59.183.139.189[19]Hostname:triband-mum-59.183.139.189.mtnl.net.in ISP:Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd.Organization:Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd.Proxy:None detectedType:Cable/DSL, Country:India State/Region:16-City:Bombay, Latitude:18.975, Longitude:72.8258--Florentino floro (talk) 06:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)"
- Max[20] admitted:"I promise to be terse. It is not irrelevant to bring up evidence of a conflict of interest. You have a personal stake in "coconut healing oil" and thus what you choose to write about it should be critically viewed, especially if there are questions about the sources you use as evidence. 59.183.139.189 (talk) 06:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)Sorry, I wasn't logged in when I wrote this, but it was me. maxsch (talk) 12:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)"--Florentino floro (talk) 13:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- "This is direly important in this discussion, since Max admitted per research that Max replied from India, Bombai. Lookup IP Address:59.183.139.189[19]Hostname:triband-mum-59.183.139.189.mtnl.net.in ISP:Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd.Organization:Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd.Proxy:None detectedType:Cable/DSL, Country:India State/Region:16-City:Bombay, Latitude:18.975, Longitude:72.8258--Florentino floro (talk) 06:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)"
- By the way this is very useful to discover the IP Address, just discovered this today from a Malolos technician, I wanna share it with you, so that when an IP address posts in Wiki we can scan it. So, I quote this:
- There might be no end, to our Max conflict, since the IP Address is from India, Bombai, that Max admitted and asked for apology. I was frontpaged there on April 7, 2006, in Mumbai Mirror, now it is a dead link. So Max used that IP, to reveal to me the immense spiritual battle that is hidden.[18]
AfD nomination of Kowloon Nine Heads Rodeo Show
An article that you have been involved in editing, Kowloon Nine Heads Rodeo Show, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kowloon Nine Heads Rodeo Show. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? PhilKnight (talk) 21:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
There is no election yet, is there a campain
Wiki is not a blog, but Max is seeking for election. I alerted some Filipino editors and admin on the problem caused by our one on one conflict. If all of you unlike me are IT or PC advance learners, you would easily think that our conflict is a real Wiki RFC or etc. But no. Max went to Mumbai to bring the conflict there. As I told you, on Good Friday, 1998, more than 5 guys at Tolosa, Olot knew me as their lawyer, personally, and this is documented. Let me quote my ALERT message to my adopting parent on this Max Mumbai thing.
Plaridel
Greetings. Let me quote my message to my adopting parent on Max. "Dear Parent, I now have hard evidence that Maxs and User:Cma have no agenda here, except the hidden vindictive yet spiritual request to prevent me from editing secret unspecified articles in Wikipedia that Max and Cma desire. If this is what they want, both can specify these. Enumerate these, and if Wiki rules permit, I will not edit or add to these articles. Why confuse Wiki foreign and Filipino administrators and editors including you, on our conflict? As the long and tedious discussion rages, one could not really discover what both want. So, tersely, I made this[21]. Please, parent, read this long discussion on Plaridel dire Aviation accidents and incidents on 3 Indian nationals. Any lawyer will tell you, that my evidence is not religious but circumstantial, pointing to the fact that Max went to India to consult Vedic and venerable tellers to decipher my very own dire actuations on many events worldwide which concerned many. Mystic India is not that simple, nor Max.
- I am not sure if you can comprehend and read between the lines. Before these 3 deaths happened, the 3 Indians used regularly my own rented PC Internet in Plaridel. I had forewarned many Indians about the Cessna planes crashing - worst not the crash but mystic collisions before my every head and eyes circa the time Max had been on this Wiki thing. I resist and stay away from all of these controversial Wiki posting of religious discussions lest I be misinterpreted by skeptics and atheists, that I deeply respect, since I am a closed scientist and debunked psychic phenomena, even if I am a closed Catholic. Yes, I move things. Yes, I am gifted. But I keep this to myself. But Max is confusing editors here. Max should go DIRECT TO THE POINT." Regards--Florentino floro (talk) 10:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Vol. 3
You recently removed Image:Slipknot - Vol. 3- (The Subliminal Verses) Special Edition.jpg from Vol. 3: (The Subliminal Verses) stating "removing non-free image as it fails under WP:NFCC". I am wondering which of the points that the image fails? REZTER TALK ø 13:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
_Special_Edition.jpg){kind=link}
- The image was only a "Special edition cover". Usually, allowable alternate images are those of deluxe editions. The image fails to comply WP:NFCC#8. Sorry for the unspecific edit summary but that is usually my summaries. --Efe (talk) 13:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- The Special edition isn't a limited product, it is a deluxe edition of sort. It features a complete second and has completely different cover art to that of the original and thus I feel is appropriate to be used in the article as a visual reference of the product. REZTER TALK ø 13:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- Its up to you buddy. But for me, as you've said "of sort", it fails under WP:NFCC. People in the FAC room will question the fair use of this image. --Efe (talk) 13:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- See Special edition, it says Deluxe edition is just another term for special edition and you said yourself "allowable alternate images are those of deluxe editions", so unless you have any other problems I think you've just voided your own argument. REZTER TALK ø 13:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- Its up to you buddy. But for me, as you've said "of sort", it fails under WP:NFCC. People in the FAC room will question the fair use of this image. --Efe (talk) 13:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- The Special edition isn't a limited product, it is a deluxe edition of sort. It features a complete second and has completely different cover art to that of the original and thus I feel is appropriate to be used in the article as a visual reference of the product. REZTER TALK ø 13:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Request for Clarification on editing and creating an article
I found the template and read User:Cma page which states:As such, he is reported to have one of the biggest egos in history. Cma added and edited the template, stating it is n Wikipedia article instead of Wiki Page. So, I granted the request and found the links which established the fact that Cma is really the biggest egos in history. So, I opted to submit on Cma discussion page my propose edit:
:[22]
- Since the BBC link puts Cma there, aside from being Manager of IBM, then, may I ask if I can create an article [23]Dominique Gerald Cimafranca. For your comment and approval. This is very relevant in resolving our Rfc with Max since Wiki rules require us to resolve this in good faith. Waiting for your comment.
- news.bbc.co.ukDominique Cimafranca: Nothing has changed in Philippines politics (Dominique Cimafranca
Manager, Technical Support Group, IBM Corporation)[24]Regards.--Florentino floro (talk) 10:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Userbox: this user read between the lines
I suggest you use this template in your user box. Since we are both Christians, it's not disallowed by our Canon law. Do you? How do you determine the motive of a person, whether editor or blogger? Motive is material when only circumstantial evidence is available for extrajudicial punishment; if a User account is created by a lynch mob. So, in Wikipedia, an editor must trace the history of the creation of a user page. For example: Queen Beatrix was edited by IP address and Wiki scanner traced the edit to PC of the Queen. (I did it to scan Max's location and IP, Mumbai, India, around there. In BBC, Yahoo, etc. Beatrix was headlined. Here, trace the history and creator of User:Cma: the creator is now blank, red. How can we know if the present user is really Cma? How? Example: if User:efe is being used by a fake guy, or if Cma account is being used by an impostor, since it was created by red, then Wiki has a scanner called tools above history tab. Use it and you will find that Cma had deleted the blog used to hide the identity. But this hiding was caught in the tools. What then is the motive and agenda, assume good faith, of the Rfc? ---Florentino floro (talk) 12:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Talk:Plaridel, Bulacan - In world aviation history, barely 2-3 mid-air collissions were recorded. In Wikipedia[25]1996 Charkhi Dadri mid-air collisioncollided in mid-air with Air Kazakhstan Flight 1907 (9Y 1907), an Ilyushin Il-76 en route from Shymkent, Kazakhstan to New Delhi, over the village of Charkhi Dadri, Haryana, India. All 349 people on board both flights were killed, making it the deadliest mid-air collision to date.
- Since airplanes were invented, the air collissions historically accounted for Indian nations here in the Philippines, a world record of twin air disaster in just 2 years with the mysterious air collisions, involving natives of India. Hence I added these, and this was reverted or deleted. So, I must revert them in view of importance.
- I, Max and Cma are not concerned about Plaridel, India, Davide. User Efe is not concerned if I add Pangasinan to eggplant the 2007 festival which did not got Guiness. But assume good faith, agalbal said: what is the fuss about eggplant. So, I added Plaridel accident, to demonstrate the Wiki policy of notability, neutrality, COI, etc. I, Max and Cma are not concerned about all these. But, if I talk here about Mrs. Arroyo, or FPJ, or Shiva, or etc., how can we know if there if COI. I suggest you help add and edit to Wikipedia rules like COI, etc. to amend and add better policies, if it can be edited. Can I say cheers? --Florentino floro (talk) 12:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Minutae
Yo Efe, thanks for copyediting the William Gibson article. I'm curious as to what you did in this edit – to the naked eye in Firefox the diff doesn't reveal any change, but 15 characters have been removed and your edit summary referred to "[f]ixing ref to avoid huge usage of space". Can you let me know what I did wrong/how I can prevent wasteful use of space in future? Muchas gracias, Skomorokh 12:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- Welcome. I actually moved closer the parameters of the refs to avoid long browsing. You formatted it this way:
- |title=
- |url=
- |date=
- Its a waste of space, for me. So what I did, for other's convenience in editing, is this:
- |title= |url= |date=
- Regarding the characters, I did not remove any. Only the spaces. I'll continue my "FA maintenance" tomorrow if I can still spot some minor fixes. Good night (in Philippine time). BTW, congrats and good luck for tom's Main Page! --Efe (talk) 12:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
removing date auto-formatting
Yep, it's now installable using much simpler instructions, on my talk page. Tony (talk) 13:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- I actually like linking complete dates. =) But for other editor's preference, I'll try to install so that it will not be a burden for me delinking dates. Thanks for dropping by Tony. --Efe (talk) 02:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- Can you explain (on your return) why you do prefer linking them? Please read the capped "Disadvantages" on my talk page. I'm interested to know your rationale. Tony (talk) 08:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- I see it very boring to read an article with no blue links. On the other hand, I don't know what is the rationale behind linking those dates where in fact, it gives nothing but just a mere date and notable events that took place on that date. --Efe (talk) 03:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
- (Copied) Efe, it would be very rare to find an article without wikilinks aside from the autoformatting of full dates; don't worry, WP will never be boring! The rationale behind autoformatting (which looks like linking, but isn't) is to render in the WPian's preferred formatting). However, the disadvantages (see grey cap further down on this page) are many and the advantages frankly rather trivial. Tony (talk) 05:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
- I see it very boring to read an article with no blue links. On the other hand, I don't know what is the rationale behind linking those dates where in fact, it gives nothing but just a mere date and notable events that took place on that date. --Efe (talk) 03:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
- Can you explain (on your return) why you do prefer linking them? Please read the capped "Disadvantages" on my talk page. I'm interested to know your rationale. Tony (talk) 08:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Vedic
Can you help expand, cleanup, etc. Jyotiṣa, and[26] can you drop me a mouthful of opinion on this, I was just baptized here, racing to be the very first but I had not yet created an article, still disecting it, just a thrill for I might be able to learn more how to use IT to make my skills better here in Wiki.[27]--Florentino floro (talk) 11:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Falsification?
Hi, may I ask your view on this[28], but before you read it. This one first.
Florentino floro (talk) 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. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
--Florentino floro (talk) 13:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
- I failed to monitor the discussion but so far, there was no falsification of signature. The signature is in the IP form since the history/diff shows its an IP who contributed/edited it. --Efe (talk) 11:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
script etc.
Efe—Are you using the "importScript" string? It's best to do so; simply take a new line (perhaps leave a spare line above it), paste in, save, and REFRESH the page. If this doesn't work, let me know. On your link to NFC, I think anything, such as a reference, that increases or provides an opportunity for the reader to increase, understanding of the topic (NFCC#8) helps. It's a decision made on balance. The caption is often important in convincing the NFC police that the inclusion of the image has a specific goal in relation to 8. The important ones are 1, 3a and 8. Tony (talk) 12:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)