Talk:Naga, Camarines Sur

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

Someone put Elbert pogi after listing down Penafrancia, in the list of barangays of Naga City. Please take this out.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.9.3 (talk) 12:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regional Center??[edit]

http://bicol.da.gov.ph/Statistics/regional_profile.html please read Kuya Kyon 12:04 23 May 2007 —Preceding undated comment added 16:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]

New article to replace copyrighted one[edit]

The new article is at Naga City/Temp. Once the old page is deleted, please replace it with the new one. Thanks. TheCoffee 29 June :54 (UTC)

Naga City Income Class[edit]

Is Naga City "highly urbanized"? Based on the NSCB definition which is linked by the "Income Class" link in the infobar, the city is not highly urbanized because it did not meet the population criterion. The person who modified this is anonymous with its IP belonging to PLDT. Ianalis 14:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not (yet) "highly urbanized" according to Philippine Census definitions.

This article reads more like a tourist brochure than an encyclopedia entry. It is full of unverified and/or unverifiable claims and superlatives such as "undeniably the most progressive city", "the acknowledged financial center". Acknowledged by whom? I would like to see concrete evidence of these claims, such as reliable sources and references. Otherwise, such claims are simply the writer's subjective views, violates Wikipedia's NPOV policy and have no place in an encyclopedia article. --87.194.3.169 21:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Based on latest statistic office criteria, no Bicolano city, much less Naga, can claim to be highly urbanized. In fact no Bicol city can even claim to be 1st class. I was told that in some city recognition contests in the Philippines, Naga has been categorized among highly urbanized cities. Hmmm. Anyway the tag "undeniably the most progressive city" is for the eyes to see. Perhaps you have to see for yourself why it's really like that. For individuals like me who travel and transact for business all over Bicol daily, it is not difficult to believe it so. As regards the "acknowledged financial center" thing, the central bank says so.--Bicololdtimer 07:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect to Bicololdtimer, although you are correct in saying that no Bicol city has reached the "highly urbanized" status, you are wrong to say that there are no "first class" (in the Philippine Census sense of the term) city in the region. Naga and Legazpi cities are both first class cities according to government websites. As for the "undeniably most progressive city" tag, unfortunately, hearsay and personal opinion are not enough to prove this. Perhaps a more specific adjective would be better, such as "a business-friendly city" or "business-oriented culture" would be more appropriate, if this is what is meant by "progressive", which can mean anything. Furthermore, any remarks made by the Central Bank (or presumably someone who represents that institution) should be appropriately referenced, if not, it should be omitted. I think we should also avoid tourist-brochure language when writing about cities, provinces and countries. It would be great if someone could expand on the History section, which stops at 1948 - actually the same could be done for the other Bicol cities. I think this is better than listing all the FM and AM radio stations in the city. --87.194.3.169 20:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Naga is the center of religion in the region as this is the focal point of the Penafrancia Festival. But I have serious doubts about it being the financial, cultural, educational, ...etc...etc...center. According to this article it seems to be the center of everything in Bicol! It does sound very biased. --62.140.210.158 12:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reading through article and as a Bicolana retired banker who lived and worked for decades each in Cam. Sur, Cam. Norte, and Albay provinces and finally settling down in Naga City, I can only agree Naga is center of almost everything in Bicol. Well, almost but not quite. It is not difficult to believe once you get to live in Naga and rest of places in Bicol, which incidentally is among depressed regions in the country. Being an employee who travelled a lot on the job for over 30 years, coming over to Naga I would notice vibrance and progress whose magnitude is lacking anywhere else in Bicol, with due respect to the other beautiful places, no offense meant. But I must hasten to add that perhaps only the blind won’t see the great difference. For one, available night life and variety of eating places are something to be thankful for and crow about in Naga. There are other aspects one cannot disagree about because of figures involved compared to other places. Center of religion, of course it’s Naga due to Penafrancia (though am not Catholic, but I can indulge). Educational center of course it’s Naga because it has most number of universities (6 in all, am teaching in 1 now) and other big institutions. Financial center of course it’s Naga since it has most no. of banks, than anywhere else in the region (remember I was a banker before). The sheer no. of banks alone is enough indication of progress because, believe you me, no bank would establish in a place if it’s not profitable to do so. Cultural center, well, I don’t know how that came to be, but that’s rather vague, so I don’t think so. SM, biggest retailer and mall owner with its businesswise management, has reportedly decided to build it’s 1st ever mall in Bicol in Naga. Also reportedly Pacific Mall in Naga is also to be constructed with a planned size twice bigger than that of its existing mall in another Bicol city (but seems to have chickened out because of SM’s plans). Rather than be accused as sounding very biased, perhaps people should come over and see and experience for themselves why Naga is where the main action is in Bicol now and profit from it.--Isarog Lass 12:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This city's wiki article has TOO MANY EXAGGERATIONS! And yet it is classified as a B-Grade? Give me a break. It is not the blah-blah-blah center in the Bicol Region. For instance, its claim of being the educational center of Bicol Region is belied by the fact that the regional state university is located in Legazpi City, which has undoubtedly produced the most topnotchers in several board exams in the region and will now have the most modern medical school in the region. Financial center? If it is, it has yet to surpass the volume of bank deposits of Legazpi City. The number of banks is hardly an indication.103.14.62.48 (talk) 04:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced content[edit]

I've marked the article as unreferenced. Although I agree with the people who mentioned good things about Naga (see above discussion), anectodal evidence is not enough in an encyclopedia. In fact, it's not allowed since it would be considered as original research, as far as I know. I tried adding {{fact}} tags but realized there's a lot to be inserted. I hope someone would add citations so that our (including me) assertion that Naga is great would be backed up. I encourage the posters above to add their references. I might add some in the future, if I have time. -- Ianalis 13:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another user has kindly pointed out that Naga City is in fact rated

'second class'[edit]

and PARTIALLY  urbanized (not highly urbanized) as per the NSCB's latest data (June 2007): http://www.nscb.gov.ph/activestats/psgc/listcity.asp

--Agniilepurohutam 20:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: According to the above link, Naga is now fully urbanized instead of partially - I amended the info box to reflect this. I checked to see if its status is already "highly urbanized". According to the same link it hasn't reached this category yet, maybe it will in the next Census, who knows. --Agniilepurohutam 20:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone edited out your revision. Anyway, can someone please recheck the NSCB data? It might be a typo or there might be some caveats there. I've checked the income statement of Naga City for the passed three years from its website and the income was always above P300M. I'm not a finance/accounting person so I might be wrong. And please cite data after doing so. -- Ianalis 02:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Naga City (Camarines Sur)[edit]

i think we must move this article to Naga City (Camarines Sur) because it's will be esay to search in wikipedia.--O.waqfi (talk) 12:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Ph seal nagacity.png[edit]

Image:Ph seal nagacity.png is being used on this article. 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 this Wikipedia article 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.

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

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:TV5 Logo.png[edit]

The image Image:TV5 Logo.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --04:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<Cityname> <City>[edit]

There is a discussion regarding the removal of the word "city" from the article titles of Philippine cities. This may imminently affect the article name for Naga, Camarines Sur. For city names which are not unique, disambiguation alternatives are also being presented. Formal request for page move may follow after a reasonable time of discussion. If you wish to participate, please post your comments here. --JinJian (talk) 04:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. Jafeluv (talk) 21:40, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Naga City → Naga, Camarines Sur — Part of series of multiple page move requests involving Philippine cities under the category Cities/Municipalities with the same name as other local cities/municipalities (regardless if it is highly urbanized, independent or component city). This request is made after preliminary discussions for the removal of the word "city" from most of the article titles of Philippine cities and providing disambiguation wherever necessary. Some disambiguation may involve using the <cityname>, <provincename> format, regardless if it is highly urbanized, independent or component cities. In here, <provincename> purports to describe the general area and not necessary as the mother political unit of the city, since some people might have wrongly believed that this naming convention is exclusively for Philippine towns only. For more information please see Wikipedia_talk:Tambayan_Philippines/Task_force_LGU#Article_names_for_Philippine_cities:_.3Ccityname.3E_.3Ccity.3E. JinJian (talk) 06:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support for the numerous reasons I have stated over the years. See the linked discussion page in the proposal for details. --seav (talk) 00:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Ago foundation hospital naga city.JPG Nominated for Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Ago foundation hospital naga city.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bicol medical center.JPG Nominated for Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Bicol medical center.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bicol medical center 1.JPG Nominated for Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Bicol medical center 1.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bicol science centrum.JPG Nominated for Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Bicol science centrum.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Carmelite naga city 2.JPG Nominated for Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Carmelite naga city 2.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Immaculate concepcion church.JPG Nominated for Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Immaculate concepcion church.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Evangelicalism?[edit]

There are only two categories of Christian denominations mentioned: Roman Catholic and Evangelicalism. Evangelicalism tends to be considered a subdivision of Protestantism, which would be a broader (and therefore better) category, since not all the churches listed may consider themselves Evangelical, while they are likely to consider themselves Protestant. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 02:20, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clean up[edit]

This article has an overly strong propaganda tone with many problematic references. For instance, the claim "Most Progressive" has a reference, but it is taken from a public comments section. The claim "most vibrant" is taken from a biased tourism site (and taken out of context!). The claim "Most Globally Competitive" is misquoted (it was rated 9th!) and purely promotional info only. And then there is the claim "premier city". This is a purely subjective, unquantifiable claim. All these statements are referenced using biased or unreliable sources (see WP:SOURCE). These are just 4 examples, but the article is full of biased statements that are contrary to WP:POV and WP:PROPAGANDA. Even if they have a reference, such statements are unacceptable, especially if they are taken from unreliable sources.

Further, the entire Peñafrancia and Kamundagan Festival sections are duplicated. And there is needless and unusual bold formatting, contrary to MOS:BOLD. There are also a few too many pictures, resulting in poor formatting and crowding (see MOS:IMAGES). Plain lists of businesses will also be removed as contrary to WP:DIRECTORY.

So all this will be cleaned up again. If I removed too much content, please explain below why it should be included. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 14:36, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does this page seriously deserves a B-Class rating? I highly doubt it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.14.62.233 (talk) 02:47, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~ Indeed, this page was used for some propaganda purposes to the extent that Jacob Frostwhinner and IP address user 110.93.93.206 added unverified and non-working sources. The claims were either baseless or misleading. They claimed that Naga is Bicol's most populous city when in reality it is Legazpi which is the most populous. They included a number of sources which are either(as said earlier) not working or self serving such as those from the speeches of Mayor Bongat or former Mayor Robredo.

More Cleanup[edit]

I stumbled upon the "World War II and Japanese Occupation" section and started cleaning it up- until I hit this:

The Philippine Commonwealth Army on 1942 to 1946 and the Philippine Constabulary 2nd Infantry Regiment on 1944 to 1946 was founding establishment and military active on 1942 to 1946 at the general headquarters and stationed in Naga. Many Bicolano resistance groups was downfall conflicts and insurgent invasion of Naga on 1942 to 1945 and aided and supporting them by the local ground troops under the Philippine Commonwealth Army units and attacking Imperial Japanese soldiers. After the conflict siege, some Bicolano freedom fighters are retreating by the Japanese and before the liberation on Naga by Allied troops until 1945.

To clean that up I would need to be able to guess what its writer(s) meant to say- which is very difficult without knowing the subject matter. Was this translated from another language using Google or Bing translate? Also, "freedom fighters" seems inherently POV. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:00, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exaggerated Wiki Article[edit]

Too many exaggerations and baseless claims. A warning to all who would be visiting and investing in Naga City.103.14.62.48 (talk) 04:58, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Examples (done by User:Dominic McArthur):

1. Naga City is Bicol Region's economic, commercial, trade, tourism, medical, technological, religious, cultural, industrial, educational, financial, and social center.[1]

Remark: source is the city's government site itself, which was more intended for promotional purposes and it is not backed up by real figures and facts.

2.The city of Naga is located within the province of Camarines Sur in the southeastern tip of Luzon at the near the center of the Bicol Region

Remarks: (1) Naga City is very far from the southeastern tip of Luzon island. One just have to look at the map to verify this assertion. From what I know, it is still around 250 kilometers north of the southeasternmost town of Matnog, Sorsogon.

(2) "Near the center of Bicol Region" is also very doubtful.

3. Naga City is Bicol Region's center of commercialization, and industrialization,[2]

Remark: Source cited is promotional in nature and does not include citations.

4. Naga City is easily accessible by air. The city is served by the Naga Airport (WNP), the busiest in Southern Luzon, which is located in the barangay of San Jose in the neighboring town of Pili.

Remark: Not true. Please see discussion below.

5. Naga City is considered to be Southern Luzon's educational center due to its prestigious academic performances of schools, and is the home of six largest universities in the Bicol Region.

Remark: Not a single authority nor an entity has ever considered it as such.

Thank you.Unique Albay (talk) 12:56, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • P199, what sources do you need? And why is there a need for such source? I'm asking this question because I thought my remarks are clear enough.Unique Albay (talk) 03:32, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://naga.gov.ph/go/ecological-profile/social-development/
  2. ^ http://philippinescities.com/naga-city/

Naga does not have the busiest airport in Southern Luzon[edit]

It does not even have an airport.

If it refers to the airport in Pili, it is still not the busiest airport in Southern Luzon. Here is the list of the busiest airports in the Philippines. The airports located in Southern Luzon are bolded:


Rank/Airport/IATA/City/Total Passengers

1/Ninoy Aquino International Airport/MNL/Manila/33,889,532

2/Mactan-Cebu International Airport/CEB/Cebu/6,712,293

3/Francisco Bangoy International Airport/DVO/Davao/2,963,243

4/Iloilo International Airport/ILO/Iloilo/1,854,427

5/Kalibo International Airport/KLO/Kalibo/1,832,168

6/Lumbia Airport/CGY/Cagayan de Oro/1,614,157

7/Puerto Princesa International Airport/PPS/Puerto Princesa/1,322,925

8/Clark International Airport/CRK/Angeles/1,309,883

9/Daniel Z. Romualdez Airport/TAC/Tacloban/1,149,592

10/Bacolod-Silay International Airport/BCD/Bacolod/1,018,417

11/Zamboanga International Airport/ZAM/Zamboanga/904,668

12/Tagbilaran Airport/TAG/Tagbilaran/734,207

13/Boracay Airport/MPH/Malay/595,564

14/Legazpi Airport/LGP/Legazpi/578,767

15/Bancasi Airport/BXU/Butuan/524,194

16/Sibulan Airport/DGT/Dumaguete/451,112

17/Labo Airport/OZC/Ozamiz/272,850

18/Awang Airport/CBO/Cotabato/246,209

19/Tuguegarao Airport/TUG/Tuguegarao/223,907

20/Roxas Airport/RXS/Roxas/217,552

21/Naga Airport/WNP/Naga/204,458

22/Dipolog Airport/DPL/Dipolog/189,200

23/Laoag International Airport/LAO/Laoag/188,048

[1]

From the foregoing list, the Naga airport, which is actually located in Pili, is only third busiest in Southern Luzon.Unique Albay (talk) 07:40, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, as of this time of my posting, that portion remains on the page. For the benefit of all readers, that portion must be deleted as it is clearly false. The reliability of Wikipedia is tainted if there are false descriptions stated on their pages. I have no choice but to delete it as a concerned reader myself. Unique Albay (talk) 15:02, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Source:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_busiest_airports_in_the_Philippines

Laying the ground rules (re: recent April 2014 edits)[edit]

This message goes to the editors involved in the recent flurry of editing in this article as well as that in the Legazpi, Albay article. Since I don't know (yet) which editors are on which side of the apparent argument over editing in these articles, I will make this message a little bit generic.

First: can we all agree that by editing Wikipedia articles---not just the Naga or Legazpi articles, but any Wikipedia article---that we will abide by the core policies of Wikipedia editing? These are:

  1. neutral point of view -- in which any addition to an article must be neutral, unbiased and free of self-/promotion or advertising-like language. A few of the edits that I had made on the Legazpi article, for instance, had used language that read like it was lifted from a newspaper ad (something like "So-and-so Cinema is the only cinema that has the latest state-of-the-art equipment"). We are building an encyclopedia article, a reference source, and not a brochure or a promotional material for your city.
  2. verifiability -- in which, if you are inserting something that states a fact about the article, you must be able to back it with a verifiable and reliable source. For the time being, I let some of the unsourced statements stand as I will need more time to review the affected articles (I'll have to sleep in a little bit), but ideall anything you write here must be sourced from a reference material. This means, for example, newspaper articles, textbooks, but not (personal/unofficial) blogs, message boards/forums (like Skycrapercity.com) or Wiki-like websites (like Wikifilipinas). If what you wrote is not supported by references or is not mentioned in any reference material you wrote, don't be surprised if another editor removes that sentence or sentences for those very reasons.
  3. no original research -- in which, you must make sure that you didn't make up anything you write. Sure, Naga or Legazpi may be the oldest or largest city in Bicolandia, but if you wrote something like that and it wasn't supported by any reference material (see previous point), then it may be construed as something that you invented.

Now that I've mentioned these three core principles, you all don't have an excuse :)

I've seen the comments that all of you concerned parties left here, in the Legazpi article's talk page and also on your respective user talk pages. What I saw isn't very pretty. Please be civil towards your fellow editors and make sure you discuss your concerns peacefully. There are other ways to settle disagreements on editing the articles, but using hostile language could only go so far, I'm confident that you are all beyond that.

Also: please note that frequently undoing and changing each other's edits for any reason at all in such a short time period does not constitute vandalism per se, but might be construed as edit warring, which could be a ground for your account to be blocked from editing in Wikipedia. Try discussing your concerns on this (or another article's) talk page, or at least notify the user concerned (on his/her talk page) that you want to have that discussion

Questions, comments, reactions related to the Naga or Legazpi articles...please leave them here on the Naga article or on the Legazpi article (depending on what your exact concern is). Or you can also head over to the Wikipedia Project: Philippines talk page so that other active Pinoy Wikipedians can help you with your concerns. Or on my talk page, if you so wish. --- Tito Pao (talk) 17:17, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am sorry, User:Titopao, but even if your post seeks neutrality, it doesn't appear to be such. Why zero in on the statements mentioned in Legazpi City? There are still many unverified portions of the Naga City Page but were hardly ever touched. Yet you've never mentioned any of those. This alone creates serious doubt as to your neutrality. I am crying foul because my beloved city was vandalized, over and over again. Important facts, although unverified, are deleted all too hastily. And yet I look at other pages, including Naga Page, and I see so many unverified portions which are amazingly untouched! As a Bicolano and as a resident of this region, I know all too well which are true and which are false! Again, I have time and time again said that I am all here for truth and nothing else. Should my posts appear to be untrue because they are unverified and should be deleted, then by all means, apply the very same test to all! I would not hesitate to declare once and for all that I am here to protect the Legazpi City Page and this is where I proudly stand. It needs to be protected, and to be treated EQUALLY, and in the very same manner as all other pages! I stand up for it because I care for the TRUTH.Unique Albay (talk) 05:10, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
About the apparent "favoritism", my response is simple: I just want to put all my comments in one place, and it so happened that I was editing the Naga article when I started drafting this response. If you looked closely at the Legazpi talk page, I also left a link leading to this Talk page. (If I were editing the Legazpi page when I started it, then I would have done it the other way around.) As I said, I'm still taking time to review both articles and will make the corresponding edits. The Naga article is too long (way way longer than the Legazpi article), it was late in the evening last night and I also need to sleep, I just tried to finish last night's Talk page comment before signing out. (I hadn't meant to look into the Naga and Albay articles---I've been spending much of my Wiki-time patrolling vandalisms---but I read the notice in WT:TAMBAY, so I decided to take a look and make some edits. As I've mentioned again, I haven't completed it.) Don't assume that I'm playing favorites here because, among others, I'm not a Bicolano and I've never been to any city or town in Bicol before, I left last night's comments on this place for the reasons I've mentioned.
I'd also like to point out that nobody has ownership over an article. While I understand that your pride for your hometown motivates you to "protect" the Legazpi City article from unwanted edits, that alone doesn't give you sole "ownership" or "custodianship" (or what have you) over that article. If another editor undos or replaces your edits, so be it, that's the way Wikipedia works (unless it's an outright vandalism). But if you don't agree with how another editor made the edit, at least try to discuss it with him in the article talk page or the user's talk page. (Or, for Philippine-related articles in general, at the Tambayan.)
I do understand that your position (being a resident of Legazpi City and all) makes you think that there's a lot more you want to include in the Legazpi article. But like what I've mentioned, as much as possible all edits on Wikipedia must be backed up by a reliable and verifiable source. If your reference is a printed book instead of a website, that's fine, you can use that, too, as long as you observe proper citation guidelines. If you lack references for some of your edits (especially if it advances a strong claim like, say, "Legazpi is the largest city in the Bicol Region"), then it might be better to defer adding the information until you've found a good reference material that you can use.
One other note: I noticed (in my Watchlist) that you've also left a comment on the Legazpi, Albay talk page. I haven't checked that out yet, so I'll leave my comments here as they are. I'll address your Legazpi, Albay concerns after I've read that one. --- Tito Pao (talk) 06:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tito Pao's Double Standards[edit]

1. You do not seem to know how important it is not only to be neutral but also to APPEAR neutral, if you are acting in the capacity of some "neutral officer." I do not think that you should continue doing this unless you remove all doubts about your neutrality. Thank you.

2. Re Ownership: This is a fact that does need to be brought up. Neither have I asserted to such fact. This is an irrelevant discourse.

3. Re "If another editor undos or replaces your edits, so be it, that's the way Wikipedia works (unless it's an outright vandalism). But if you don't agree with how another editor made the edit, at least try to discuss it with him in the article talk page or the user's talk page.": It sounds like you are actually tolerating edit-warring "because that's just how Wikipedia works". If that is not what you imply, perhaps you need to rearrange your statements so it won't appear to be tolerating "edit warring"?

5. Re verifiability and reliability: I have provided sources for some of those statements I have inserted. For those without references, my big contention is this: why allow portions of other pages remain standing even though they are unverified? Again I am here for equal protection. It's rather ridiculous to delete important facts about Legazpi just because they are unverified when so many other wiki pages have portions unverified!

6. Re: same topic: why is there a need to hastily delete unverified statements when there are no disputes about them? There is no good reason to delete them. IMHO, undisputed facts, though unverified, must remain! Why delete them? Because there are no sources? Then, by all means, APPLY THE SAME TREATMENT TO ALL!

7. Lastly, kindly check out my sandbox. I recrafted it to show my academic background and all other important information you may need to know about me.Unique Albay (talk) 14:14, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I feel I have no choice but to respond to each of your points:
1. First...I am neither an "officer" nor an administrator, I'm just an ordinary editor just like you are. But it doesn't necessarily mean that I have to be an administrator or a higher-level editor in order to at least attempt to resolve any issues I may see on an article. The way you characterize me, it seems that you are assuming bias on my part, just because I left my comments on this article's talk page and not the Legazpi talk page and also just because (as I've explained earlier), I haven't gone back editing the Naga article yet. Can you cite specific instances where I exhibited bias in favor of Naga and against Legazpi?
2. It does matter, because in at least one instance, you were asking an admin to block another editor for "vandalism" because of an edit he made in the Legazpi, Albay article (although an admin did respond to your vandalism complaint in WP:AIV and ruled that the "vandal" edits you complained about were not vandal edits). You even said in your Talk page comment, "There is too much vandalism coming from that city for some odd reason only few people know. However, I could not reveal what their intentions and purposes are. I am only here to restructure the wiki page of Legazpi, which is badly-damaged by some people with evil intentions." I don't know---and I don't care and I don't even want to know---what those reasons are, but by bringing that up in the talk page, it seems to me that your only intention for signing up for a registered account in Wikipedia is to focus on editing only the Legazpi, Albay article for a specific reason that you care so much about, and protect it against unwanted edits that do not satisfy you. In other words...it appears that you want to take ownership of the article. Are you trying to tell me that because of some particular reason, you're the only person qualified to edit the Legazpi, Albay article? Was it really necessary to stress that most other people who would edit the Legazpi City article have "evil intentions"?
3. The premise of editing in Wikipedia is that anyone can edit it, he or she doesn't have to wait for someone else to do it. If another editor thinks that some of the wording in an article needs to be fixed for whatever reason, he can edit it. It happens in all Wikipedia articles, and that's normal. And it helps improve the quality of most Wikipedia articles (so I hope) because it allows other editors to contribute to it. Not every change done on an article by another user constitutes edit-warring, only under certain circumstances which you can find here. As far as I can see, no edit-warring has happened---so far---in both Naga and Legazpi articles. Hopefully, it won't come to that point where you will immediately revert/reverse almost every edit done by others that you do not agree with. (Unless it's an outright vandalism like what happened recently to articles about Philippine senators.)
(where is #4?)
5. "why allow portions of other pages remain standing even though they are unverified?" -- Well, if you yourself see something that needs improvement in an article, then feel free to edit it. I do not necessarily "tolerate" or "allow (unverified portions) to remain standing"...I cannot devote all my time in monitoring and improving all the articles I see or include in my watchlist. There are nearly 1,000 articles in my account's Watchlist, and I cannot possibly check all those articles at the same time on each sitting. You can't possibly, say, own 1,000 cars and expect to drive them all yourself at the same time, can you? (As I've mentioned earlier, my recent and current focus is on monitoring vandalism; by focusing on this particular task, this means of course that it comes at the expense of, say, foregoing to have to check each and every article for unverified sources.)
6. Not all "undisputed facts" are necessarily "undisputed". What may be obvious to you (and maybe to other Bicolanos, too) may not be obvious to people who live outside Bicol (unless, of course, it's a very general piece of information where adding citations might be overkill, e.g. "[WP:POPE|the Pope is Catholic]]", "Manila is the capital of the Philippines", "Legazpi is the capital of Albay, which is a province of the Philippines"). If something you write on an article is a "fact" that might be "obvious" only to a limited number of Wikipedia readers (e.g. only to readers who are Bicolanos or who live in the Bicol Region vs. the entire readership of Wikipedia worldwide), then it's best to support that information with citations. Or leave it out temporarily, until you can find other sources to support it.
7. I don't know why you needed to bring it up and I can't see how that helps here. Editors can come from any age and background, and you and I are no different from everyone else...I've encountered editors who are in high school (and even grade school), I've encountered editors who have more than one graduate degrees, I've encountered editors who are school dropouts. I've encountered people who are younger than me, I've encountered people who are older than me, I've encountered people who are nearly the same age as I am. I've encountered Catholics, Muslims, Buddhists and atheists (among others) among editors. I've met some editors IRL, but there are a lot more who I haven't met. And I'm sure, in the future, I will encounter many other editors whose backgrounds do not fit any of these that I've mentioned. The only thing in common is that we all edit. And (hopefully) treat each other well. --- Tito Pao (talk) 16:46, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tito Pao[edit]

I am using a mobile phone that does not allow me to edit sections. I can, however, add new sections so pardon me if I am creating a new one.

1. You are not competent enough to try to attempt to settle these issues. Your failure to show neutrality beyond doubts has not been resolved until now. Thus, trying to settle the issues when we are not even sure if you are neutral speaks volumes.

2. I am not assuming that you are biased. There is a big difference between an assumption and a doubt. Until now, you haven't shown a clear understanding of how important it is to appear neutral. That raises doubts as to the propriety of what you are doing now. I have already mentioned specific instances of you exhibiting bias. Twice. And you havent resolved them.

3. Re par. 2: some people's intentions in the region are politically-motivated. That is why there seems to be an edit war going on here!

4. Re: same: there is a need to stress it out because it explains why so many facts have been deleted, changed, and vandalized.

5. Re par. 5: Taking the neutral stand and posting some rules on this page while mentioning one side's infractions but not the other is imprudent. If you wish to settle the issues going on here, you have to devote more time editing the concerned pages.

6. Re vandal report: the link you provided does not show up.

7. Re last par.: I hope you have read the complete version of the article. But I should just assume that you have. I am quite surprised to know though that you do not recognize its relevance. I will give you more time to realize the relevance of competence, knowledge, and personal background to the editing of articles on an ENCYCLOPEDIA.Unique Albay (talk) 20:42, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing the point and dodging some of the issues I raised in my last reply.
You are accusing me of inaction over an article that I was editing for the first time in my entire Wikipedia editing history, yet the words you chose make it look like it should be my only responsibility. I've pointed out that you can also edit the Naga article if you also think that it doesn't meet Wikipedia's community standards, and what do I get? Short of telling me "I know I can edit it, but I don't want to even if I can, so I'll put the entire responsibility of editing the Naga article to you."
You say you are not assuming that I am biased, yet you claim that I am having "double standards", that "if your post seeks neutrality, it doesn't appear to be such" and that "This alone creates serious doubt as to your neutrality" and also "Your failure to show neutrality". If doubting a person's neutrality is not similar to assuming bias on that person, then I don't know what else is.
You are also calling on me as being "not competent enough" to provide input on the Naga and Legazpi articles, yet you do not seem to realize any possibility of conflict of interest issues on your part, as you may have inadvertently admitted here.
I'm out of here in the Naga and Legazpi articles, there are other stuff I'd rather want to do here on Wikipedia and having to explain things to you just isn't productive. I do not want to dwell on this anymore. Just don't look at me if another editor comes back here (or in the Legazpi article) and raises the same points that I mentioned earlier. --- Tito Pao (talk) 01:29, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have answered all your arguments and everything is now well-settled. It is unfortunate, however that my answers have all been erased for some reason. I hope you know by now the importance of appearing to be neutral in trying to solve issues. Lastly, it is also important to know the context of the issues you are trying to solve. Two cents. Unique Albay (talk)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Naga, Camarines Sur. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:54, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Naga, Camarines Sur. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:08, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:16, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:45, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:08, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:22, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Naga,_Camarines_Sur&oldid=1209295545"