User talk:Howard the Duck/Archive14

Are you really not biased with ABS-CBN?

Mike 82987 (talk) 21:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC) Hey Mr. Howard the Duck... R u really not BIASED? What if somebody has edited the contents about ABS-CBN? And included there facts or acclaims about ABS-CBN that Filipinos could be proud of? And yet you are as what I have discovered and reckoned a "proud to be a Kapuso" which technically means that you could have "ALMOST" sided with GMA network ubiquitously... for good or fragrant or flourishing articles about them? Huh? Like what you and Mr. Danngarcia who are advantaged and privileged USERS of the Wikipedia particularly with Philippine-related articles, antipathize my contributions about ABS-CBN. Hence, I have included there an article about the acclaim of ABS-CBN, who was the only Philippine Media Company that included in the list of 2008's Top 10 Most Admired Company in the Philippines by the Wall street Journal Asia. And because you and Mr. Danngarcia are chauvinist of 'Kapuso' for who specifically "SIDES" with GMA network, have deleted nor rejected my contributions about ABS-CBN's honor which GMA network doesn't get. You must be refuted for what you have been doing. Therefore, if you perceived that the article which i have inscribed doesn't make sense, but for the Filipinos like 'Kapamilya' watchers and ABS-CBN, it is not a gobbledygook.. it is momentous because of an article about honor and acclaim to any Filipino company which was reputed to that list and even to the country and our economy. If you might realize that I make sense, then so.. let me continue my contribution regarding that kind of article about ABS-CBN. Because you even let somebody or maybe 'as is' yourself, to be free on including the TV ratings from AGB Neilsen that GMA network has been getting, that could be theoretically inaccurate and confusing due to its correlative controversy, which can even be more rejected than the FACTS that I have edited about ABS-CBN. If you really are undeniably meek to follow Wikipedia's given privilege to the people which bounded with the freedom of the mass to go-and-edit "FACTS" with "REFERENCES", but why it seems at some point you are BIASED to this manner? Please dispute on this or clear yourself... and maybe give you "BENEFIT of THE DOUBT".

P.S. I am not whining on you if you are truthfully conscientious, nor I take this comments for you personally. Mike 82987 (talk) 21:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not. Put the acclamations in its proper place. I don't see Ayala jumping up and down and releasing press releases and such because frankly, it's not even an award. --Howard the Duck 23:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Wait... I don't use the GMA Kapuso infobox. What the? --Howard the Duck 06:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh really Mr. HtD?? You're not making a favoritism on GMA Network's pages against ABS-CBN's right.. but I am not wholly and honestly convinced yet.. you can't blame me 'coz I'm skeptical about your verisimilitude in this situation. I'm not a nit-wit Sir. You know why? huh? because your conviction of not being BIASED to ABS-CBN could happen to be a vicissitude anytime. Because I think the evidences of the talks and discussions between ABS-CBN and GMA's articles that I have red, most especially about the alleged undignified TV ratings that became lurid recently, truly substantiates your whimsical one-sidedness on GMA network rather than you shouldn't favor anyone of them, and you still unanimously let those allegedly corrupted lurid tv ratings posted on GMA's principal page or in other correlated external links despite its corruptibility that aren't still resolved in court until now. Even the Marimar "so-so" victorious tv ratings are paged here. It's seems like you are promoting and lifting the non-veritable tv ratings of GMA network which is ultimately irrelevant for others like the KAPAMILYAs. So.. my main question now is that.. if you really are standing for TRUTH and VERACITY and nothing but either, why would you let those allegedly undignified GMA's tv ratings ambiguously posted here? Connoting that ABS-CBN, GMA's nearest competitor is dislodged in tv ratings. Perhaps, GMA's tv ratings could be possibly BELIEVABLE if there was no controversy alleged and mired into it... but what you did is a CRIME to any cosmic encyclopedic contents, that you articled something that's allegedly probably MISCHIEVOUS. You should be FAIR and OBJECTIVE. Like what I justified recently, GMA's tv ratings should then be first exonerated from the crucial proceedings of the LAW in COURT before it should be articled here in Wiki. You should always STAND for the TRUTH and VERACITY. Because people might have believed in the contents of those articles. Sir. Do I make an outrageous sense Sir? Oh yes I do even if you nod. So please bring it on Sir. You have to bring it on. Make us "Kapamilyas" believe along with other non-chalant prospective, in futurity when bridge crosses between our paths regarding such matters. Yet we still ultimately and lucidly fathom that you're just doing your job and you have to be competent to prevent any malicious and erratic scriptures and do such curtails in every Philippine-related articles that violates the tenets here in our benevolent Wiki. Apparently, always remember Mr. HtD and towards other SUBJECTIVE "Kapuso" users of Wiki, for all your sake of credibility and dignity, you should not "MAR" the convictions of your job with BIASES. Ok. :::Meanwhile, if you think that I have to place such article in a more appropriate segment to ABS-CBN's principal page, I could now then aver that I may have the privilege to include my contribution in a more dignified manner isn't it Sir? And by the way, to feedback your comment about Ayala and so on.. Actually Sir HtD, this has nothing to do in business with other companies acclaimed to that kind of recognition, it's up to their move if they would do the same thing to contribute to their own articles here in Wikipedia. We're just talking about ONLY and ONLY ABS-CBN here, with no regards among other Philippine companies listed by the Wall Street Journal Asia. So why would you give importance to the Ayalas if, its ABS-CBn's page is being involved here.. right again Sir? And for your information again Sir, the Top 10 List of Most Admired Companies were being press released and emanated by the Wall Street Journal Asia forsooth, not only in the Philippines but all-over out Asia because take note: its a WORLDWIDE firm Sir. You should try to review some of the recent business broadsheets Sir.. and then you will reckoned that it has been published throughout Asia and most importantly in the PH. Lastly, yes it's not an award, it's a prestigious recognition but it's even GREATER than any awards that could be given to all the companies in Asia OK??? Because you're just looking at the smaller scale of it, you need to look at it in gamut to know its importance. By the way, ABS-CBN has stayed humble until then about their acclaim, if they're vaunting it, why would I waste my time to defend the inclusion of the article if it has been made already by any other more prolific and maverick people out there. I'm just an ordinary person who contributes about ABS-CBN and doesn't stand on the behalf of the company or even others...Ok. I hope to make myself clear. Furthermore, if you really don't use the GMA infobox, then nifty and better because you are obviously a "kapuso" and you could flourish anything there if you want to. Just continue to let others contribute there and inhibit yourself or Mr. Danngarcia who is also a "kapuso", because you could experiment to try anything that favors the network against ABS-CBN.

P.S. After a much rigorous contemplation, I decided not to continue to contribute such Wall Street Journal Asia's article about ABS-CBN anymore because multi-millions of the Filipino people had already knew about it around the world and the size is getting huger and infamous now. Surely. That's all. Thank you for coordinating Mr. HtD. Good luck sir to your journeying job as a privileged and advantaged User of Wiki. :) Mike 82987 (talk) 18:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Yadda yadda yadda. Tell me you are not biased and we'll talk. --Howard the Duck 03:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

It's done. This's not important to me anymore, I have better things to do in my life. But you should be fine as well...try to knuckle-down everything that I blurted out and not just yadda yadda yadda you could replied. ;{ Mike 82987 (talk) 09:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

... and 4chan wins :P. 70.64.78.207 (talk) 01:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The nosiest can has the one with no air. Since it's moot and academic, I'll no longer reply. --Howard the Duck 11:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

New Project

Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.

If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 04:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad to be able to help so don't remove me if I'm listed already but I'll rather be on the touch/sidelines. --Howard the Duck 06:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

hi

Hi HowardSkeet skeet176 (talk) 18:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of The GUIDON

An article that you have been involved in editing, The GUIDON, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The GUIDON. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 08:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Also listed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Philippine Collegian and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Varsitarian. Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 08:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Those AFDs won't even need my comments. They'll all be kept. --Howard the Duck 14:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't put words in my mouth please

I did not, nor would I, make the suggestion that you impute to me on Portal talk. I say quite clearly that on the main page , but not necessarily in every article, neutral, not UK version, English should be favoured. If you think that neutral language should not be attempted, by all means present your reasons, but do not attribute to me values and attitudes that are not mine. Kevin McE (talk) 13:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Tell that to WP:ENGVAR. --Howard the Duck 13:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Plus, I find the suppression of American English whenever they should be used in favo(u)r of neutral aka British English to be amusing. --Howard the Duck 13:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I am delighted to hear that you are willing to support the suggestions at ENGVAR. I am less than pleased that you cantinue to assert, without any evidence, that I cannot or will not distinguish between neutral and UK English. If "100 metres" or "100 metre sprint" (the metre, rather than meter, spelling is consistent with the name of the article, and follows IAAF usage) is as jarring and foreign to the North American ear as "dash" is, in this context, to the UK/Irish aural orifice, then please make a constructive contribution towards finding a version neutral phrasing. As regards your sarcastic comments over the naming of a stadium, you have again either failed to read or wilfully misrepresented what I said about the sponsor's name: "the name of the event (which is probably not needed anyway) is meaningful and widely understood without it": the media have generally referred to this as "a grand prix meet (I would prefer meeting, but meet is OK) in New York", and in my experience, Wikipedia (eg, WP:CUESPELL) avoids the names of commercial sponsors unless those names are intrinsic to understanding the reference (as they would be in, for example, Cycling teams). Where no other name exists in common use, as I assume is the case in the example that you cite, there can be no objection, and I would not raise one. If you are aware of a Wiki policy to the contrary, please let me know. Kevin McE (talk) 14:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

If it's not that foreign to you, why not use the U.S. English equivalent of "metre" which is "meter"?

And the Staples Center comment was just a bad attempt at humo(u)r, but I can't find the original name of the "<insert popular shoe brand here> Grand Prix" before the shoe brand bought off the rights. If it was a one-off event I don't see a reason why it shouldn't be displayed, since it is the name of the event, much like the Reebok Stadium. --Howard the Duck 14:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I anticipated your preference for meter over metre, and explained the non-Wiki authority whose lead is being followed at the articles linked in the headline. I concede that, were it not for that authority being followed, this unit of measurement of distance is an example where there is no version neutral spelling (except possibly 100m), and that the other criteria at ENGVAR would come into play. The event the other night was one of a series of grands prix (A bit of French variant English there) across the world, which are all usually known, except by those contractually obliged by the local sponsorship deal, as the Zurich/Rome/London/New York/Shelbyville grand prix (again, I had already said in my previous reply the media have generally referred to this as "a grand prix meet ... in New York". Kevin McE (talk) 15:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I dunno if Fox News is also a "non-Wiki" authority, since it apparently will cover (they haven't have an article about this -- maybe Hillary and Obama are their focus for the next months) this event, and as a third-party source, I'd take this anyday of the week when compared to the IAAF one. It used both "meters" and "Reebok Grand Prix." I dunno if there any ties between Fox/News Corp. and Reebok, though. --Howard the Duck 15:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I would distinguish between authority and media source. If you believe that the ITN snippet should use a different name for the event in the linked articles than the titles of those articles, by all means present your argument for change at ITN/C. If you think that those articles should have different names, set up your proposals as RfMs. That, rather than making sarcastic comments, would be constructive editorship. Kevin McE (talk) 15:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Aren't media sources that one used since we shouldn't supposed to trust sources about themselves? As I've said, I'm just amused on how U.S. English won't be used even on events that happened on the U.S. Now, I can't wait how the NBA Finals would be presented in neutral English. --Howard the Duck 15:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

We don't trust sources' opinions about themselves or their importance: it is churlish not to acknowledge that the unchallenged international regulatory body of a sport has an authoritative voice in determining the name of key events in the sport. As regards your apparent fear about how NBA finals would be presented, I'd invite you to post what you might typically expect the blurb to be. I suspect that it would have few terms that are specific US English, even though the context might be less common in Old World English. The one exception, that you did not predict in your attempted parody, would be the US preference for "(name of team) wins", whereas we would say "(name of team) win" There is no neutral compromise, and therefore the context would indicate that the US form be used, just as it determined that we had the UK grammatical quirk when we reported the result of the Champions League. But I would ask you two questions:

a) Do you think that Opportunities_for_commonality should be sought?

b) Do you think that sponsors' names need be given, even when the event can satisfactorily be described without it? Kevin McE (talk) 17:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Opinions? So spelling "meter" is an opinion now? As I've said, there's no apparent loss if you'd use what the English of the originating country. Hence, originating country wins.

Once again, you totally misrepresent what I said. I never said that the spelling of meter/metre was a matter of opinion: I said that the area in which original sources were not to be trusted was their opinions and statements about their own importance abd status. Are you really suggesting that the English speaking world should be indifferent to the vocabulary used for athletics events by the world governing body of athletics? Are you suggesting that it would be a good idea for the text on ITN to contradict the titles of the articles linked from that feature? And if you are refuting the notion of taking advantage of opportunities for commonality, do you accept that you no longer have any plea to ENGVAR to back up your arguments? Kevin McE (talk) 20:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, I'd use American English, hence singular verb for collective nouns. Plus, on a basketball blurb, I don't think neutral/British English would be really be used. Unless of course Celtic F.C. will sue the Boston Celtics for copyright infringement for using the "Celtic" name.

As for sponsors' name, I'd rather use the name with the sponsors' name if that is the ONLY proper name for the event. Hence, "Reebok Grand Prix", not "Grand Prix in New York", besides, when you say "Grand Prix," you automatically assume F1 or motor racing. If you'd say Reebok Grand Prix, the people won't be that stupid to assume that there are cars racing around a circuit made up of shoes, unlike "New York Grand Prix" in which people would assume that there's an F1 race in New York. For other events in which there is a prior existing name before a sponsor bought the rights, such as "The Rose Bowl presented by ____" or "Carling Cup", I'd rather use "Rose Bowl" and "League Cup" respectively, or to be safe, use the article name. --Howard the Duck 17:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I see you have declined my invitation to proffer a typical NBA blurb to allow me the chance to illustrate what might, or might not, be language that I would consider capable of being rendered in version neutral language. I really don't know what you mean by the oxymoronic "neutral/British English": neutral English is an attempt to use terms, where possible, that could be used equally happily by native English speakers on either side of the Atlantic, and avoid those phrases and spellings that betray the origin of the author. To refer to "neutral/British" is to betray a prejudicial assumption that my motives are other than I have consistently said. There are of course cases that cannot easily be evaded, such as the verb form that I have already said should be in US form for the NBA and in UK form for European soccer. As regards sponsors' names, we are in agreement, but the example in question does not meet the criterion that we both agree on: Reebok Grand Prix is not the only name by which the event can be identified, and I have illustrated that already. It is the New York leg of a grand prix series of athletics (Track and Field, if you prefer) meetings (or meets, if you prefer): that identifies it precisely and accurately. If you really think any reader is going to confuse a record time of 9.72 seconds for 100m with motor sport you fail to credit them with any intelligence. Your assumption that a multi-national leisurewear company would not be involved in sponsorship of motor sport is empirically flawed. Kevin McE (talk) 20:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Let me just end this with this: I'll be extremely disgusted if an American-held event is to be displayed in British English in the guise of "neutral" English. Much like the feeling if a British event is to be applied with American English. --Howard the Duck 03:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)It is not satisfactory for you to simply "end" when you have neither retracted nor justified your accusation. Simple yes or no answers to the following will suffice.

• Do you accept that very many phrases can be written that do not indicate the preferred version of English of the writer? (This question, or this comment, for example)
• Do you accept, in keeping with ENGVAR, the principle that opportunities for commonality should be followed where feasible?
• Do you accept that the Main Page, in particular, should "belong" to no dialectical group?
• Do you acknowledge that my proposed changes to the 100m world record contained nothing foreign to the American ear/eye?
• Do you have any evidence to provide that I have ever suggested that an article about an issue of primarily US interest or origin should be written in UK English where this contradicts US usage or spelling?
• Do you acknowledge that the phrase "grand prix athletics meet in New York" precisely and accurately identifies, in a way acceptable to US or UK readers, the event of Saturday evening?

• Yes. But we must use the brand of English that was used in the area of the event. Try using American English under the guise of neutral English. It'll look stupid.

I really don't understand what you mean by "using American English under the guise of neutral English" Either the words used are identifiably US English, or they are identifiably UK English, or they are not identifiable as to origin: i.e. it is neutral English.

• Yes, with conditions on the first answer above.

That condition cannot be applied to that clause. You effectively just replied "Opportunities for commonality should be used where feasible, but we must use a specific (i.e. not common) version". By declaring yourself to be not in agreement with one of its four guidelines, you lose any meaningful appeal to ENGVAR.

• No. Use the English used on the article. Ergo, American English on an article about FDR, and British English on an article about the Beatles. To use either or any brand of English as "neutral" English is pseudo-anti-American English.

Once again, you declare your opposition to the consensus at ENGVAR. Version neutral English is not "pseudo-anti-American English", it is,for example, the choice of prefer to avoid the version specific favo(u)r, or defend your position rather than present your defen(c/s)e.

• Metre is foreign to me. And I'm not even American.

Metre was not my suggested change. It was in the Current Portals blurb, and put by an admin into the ITN feature. I have defended its use here, as consistent with the linked articles (something that you have declined to argue against) but I would never suggest that, for example, a Wiki item saying that "a 5 meter long beam of masonry fell from the Oval Office ceiling, narrowly missing an elderly gentleman who was working at a desk" should have the word meter replaced.

• No, but with the way you're going, yes.

You have evidence about the "way I am going"? You can document spelling/vocabulary changes that I might propose to items that have not yet been written????

• No. Might as well call the just-concluded Game 5 of the Stanley Cup Finals as "a hockey game played in Detroit by mostly White people in temperatures that could've melted the ice rink already." --Howard the Duck 06:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I can see no logical paralel between the two. Not for the first time, you are using misrepresentation to attempt to undermine my point of view. This respects neither me nor the point I am making. In what way is my suggested text less than accurate or precise? It identifies the meeting as part of the GP series, (which RGP does not do, as it could simply be a pretentious title to a one-off meeting), it identifies the sport, something that you have called for in our debate, which RGP fails to do, and it locates the event. It is also exactly the phrase used on BBC TV news in reporting the record breaking acheivement.

Your answers show, I can only conclude, logical inconsistency, failure to understand the very concept of neutral English that we have been discussing, disregard of agreed Wiki guidelines, false accusation, an extraordinary claim of empirically backed insight into my future direction, and parody in place of reasoned argument. Kevin McE (talk) 14:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

This is lame. This discussion won't change the current blurb, nor will it change current policy of using British English for non-American things on the Main Page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.95.17.214 (talk) 15:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

If Kevin wants to continue this discussion, I suggest to hold it in a more prominent place since how much bandwidth we waste nothing will happen. --Howard the Duck 05:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

If you are happy to finish the discussion with the conclusions that I have arrived at, that's fine by me. Kevin McE (talk) 13:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The replies are too long I didn't even bother to read them. --Howard the Duck 17:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

That pretty much confirms the conclusion I had come to about your intellectual rigo(u)r. Kevin McE (talk) 20:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The replies me of this user so I got bored reading. --Howard the Duck 03:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Is there an English (any version) translation of this available? Kevin McE (talk) 14:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

6/3 DYK

On 3 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article PBA on RPN, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Bedford ^Pray 07:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

2008 NBA Finals

You reverted all of my edits here. Please don't do it again.

• Kobe had 24 points, not 25
• "Each" is totally redundant
• Either all names have the first and last name, or all names have only the last name. No mixes.
• Removal of other stats? Why?

● 8~Hype ^@ 05:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd at least re-add "each". On LA's assists stat it'll mean that Kobe and Fish had a combined total of 6 assists when they 6 assists each or 12 for both of them. --Howard the Duck 05:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The either/or assumption is invalid. The reason why some names display surnames only is because there are multiple names for a particular stat. There shouldn't be issues on this. --Howard the Duck 06:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

About User:Orangemike

User:Orangemike blocked my 2 accounts (User:Zosimo Montez and User:ZMontez) and other accounts from this IP Address for NO REASON. Where should I report a user? What account should I use? 203.87.181.218 (talk) 08:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

This is my new Username, User:ZRMontez. My new username should NOT BE BLOCKED by User:Orangemike or any other user. ZRMontez (talk) 09:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

You're not allowed to create a new account while blocked. That's sockpuppetting. Convince another admin to unblock you and follow instructions to avoid being blocked again. --Howard the Duck 15:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

UST's 95th Rector and 400th 2012 Anniv.

Thanks for visiting my page, and my memories on UST. I could not help but share this with you, as reasons why I often devote time to UST and yesterday's rather long edit (I appreciate any editors' edit or amendment of my long edits, since Wikipedia contributions should rather be short)... but I had to add that he is the 95th Rector, since this is so important for the readers and researchers. Why? Due to the 2012 big event. Let me note, that yesterday, Fr. De La Rosa, asked the Pope to come to UST's 2012 400th anniversary. I was present and took 3 pictures of Pope Paul VI when he visited UST. Parenthetically, when I recruited Atty. Domingo Legaspi to the St. Vincent's Seminary, as 2nd year high school, 1965, I met his brother, UST's newly appointed rector, now Arch. Leonardo Zeta Legaspi, O.P., D.D. (both are sons of Mrs. Zeta, the friend of my deceased mother; I (daily) met her husband, their father, Mr. Legaspi, a very tall and holy man, who would hear mass daily at Meycauayan, when I served as sacristan; also, every Sunday, at the Seminary from 1967-1969, my mother and Arch. Legaspi's mother would be together to visit me and Atty. Legaspi). This is the memorable reason why, I rather edited more facts and numbers ... just sayin ... memories ... --Florentino floro (talk) 08:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if he's the 95th rector or the rector at 2012; the article didn't even have mentions about changes on rectors. What was more important was the resignation of the top officials last year. --Howard the Duck 08:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

By way of rejoinder, Fr. de la Rosa was appointed acting Rector (before this one - UST’s quadricentennial rector magnificus) due to the ouster of the OPs involved in greatest money scandal in UST.[1]--Florentino floro (talk) 10:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

FIBA World Olympic Qualifying Tournament for Women 2008

I was trying to do it myself, but those templates are like a foreign language to me. Could you update FIBA World Olympic Qualifying Tournament for Women 2008 with the first day results, if you have the time? Information can be found here. Please reply on my talk page--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 18:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I think somebody updated it already. I'll make it prettier, though. --Howard the Duck 05:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

NHL Template

Any thoughts on how to handle the NHL Playoffs template redesign now that it's over for the year? MrArticleOne (talk) 04:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd go with the the current proposal (unless there is another more current one). --Howard the Duck 04:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

What I meant was, how do we move forward with the current proposal? MrArticleOne (talk) 04:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Is there a significant enough discussion at the ice hockey project? If there is and there is consensus you can go ahead and implement it. --Howard the Duck 04:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if it was ever specifically brought to their attention. At one point, you suggested that anybody who needed to know about it would be exposed to it by the discussion reference at the 2008 Stanley Cup Playoffs talk page. MrArticleOne (talk) 12:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Bring it up on WP:HOCKEY. If there are favorable responses you can implement the change. --Howard the Duck 12:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)