User talk:Peachywink/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Peachywink. 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.

Archive 1

Jackson Wang filmography

Hi there, I just wanna ask why you removed Jackson's cameo in The Producers drama on Jackson Wang profile. Thanks - alicevuth

alicevuth - I left a response on your page but wanted to add some other on related stuff. New post go at the bottom of a talk page not the top. I know, it confused me too at first, however if a person has a talk page and you want to add something you can use the new section button next to the edit button at the top. It will add it for you where it should go and all you need to do is type in title and your comments. Last tip is that for your signature on a post you can just type "~ ~ ~ ~" -but without the quotes or spaces, it will auto fill your name link and post time. These are all things I also learned eventually not immediately since a lot of editing wiki is a learn as you go process. :)Peachywink (talk) 22:04, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Got7

Thanks for your note. G4 is for reposts, and its purpose is to re-delete content that was already deleted at a deletion discussion. When a page has gone through lots of modifications, as is obviously the case with List of awards and nominations received by Got7, it's not possible for it to be a repost: maybe it started that way, but it's been changed to the point that it can't possibly be the same as before. Nyttend (talk) 23:36, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for helping me understand better; I wasn't quite understanding what you were thinking, but now it's clear. Pardon me if I'm telling you what you already know, but...By deletion debates, I meant any of the WP:XFD pages, which in this case would be WP:AFD, "Articles for deletion". It's a formal discussion over whether to delete the page (example, although rather unusual in its subject matter), and we have G4 because sometimes people save content on their hard drives and recreate articles, or they get the content from archive.org's version of a Wikipedia article. In this case, while a page isn't deletion-worthy just because it got un-redirected, we can always consider un-un-redirecting, as Random86 chose to do here; it definitely looks like he made the right choice. Basically, when you're asking for a page to be speedy-deleted, it's important that any random administrator be able to see why it should be deleted, since most of us aren't specialists in this type of subject, while a deletion discussion will give you the chance to explain why something doesn't meet the inclusion criteria. Nyttend (talk) 01:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Got7 Videography (February 13)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Onel5969 was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability—see the guidelines on the notability of music-related topics and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia.
What you can do: Add citations (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners) to secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Got7 Videography and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Onel5969 (talk) 17:41, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Got7 Videography has been accepted

Got7 Videography, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Onel5969 (talk) 03:09, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

2PM edits.

Right now I'm out of town and I'm upgrading my computer system this weekend. I'd like to download the current 2PM PDF's, but can't get to it till Saturday/Sunday. I'd appreciate it if you could give me till then. I'm thinking of moving the whole thing as is, to a wikia for those fans who want it. That way nothing is really lost. Ok, thanks for your time. Mikepellerin^talk 16:46, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Sure thing, that was part of the reasoning I had for warning people anyways (so they could grab a copy of the full list) and I have no problem waiting a little.Peachywink (talk) 19:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Everything can be accessed via the page history, so don't worry about giving people time to save the page. Every version of the page is already saved. :) Information is only gone when a page is deleted. Random86 (talk) 20:01, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Peachywink was providing a common courtesy (from one editor to another), allowing my to download my 2PM Book as a PDF, rather than having to go through the history pages. I don't see anywhere in this conversation that your name was mentioned Random86, so I don't see why you needed to make any comment on an issue that has nothing what so ever to do with you. Maybe you should mind your own business! Mikepellerin^talk 01:06, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

TVXQ unreliable sources

Can you add a "reason=" to indicate which of the sources are unreliable? That would help the editors clean up the article. Otherwise they would have no clue. -AngusWOOF (talk) 00:56, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Happy Easter!

File:Chocolate-Easter-Bunny.jpg

All the best! "Carry me down, carry me down; carry me down into the wiki!" (talk) 05:15, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Made World Tour

about MADE 2015 World Tour, the tour have only started in South Korea, the rest of the dates still didn't announced, but it will visit Asia, America, Australia and Europe, it's the largest tour ever made for a Korean or an Asian Artist, it's will bring over 1.5 million fans. Most of the tickets still not on sale. I will update the page in the next few days with answers why is it important or notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CesarLeto (talk • contribs) 04:01, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

MADE 2015 World Tour should stay because there is no reason someone would have to create it after it has happened, where is the rule? Is it made up? Also, it makes more sense to make an article for a confirmed event, which is going to unroll over several weeks, and add information as it happens. Tell us why someone has to stress write a bunch of info at once instead of update it as it goes?--Yenamare (talk) 09:45, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

@Yenamare if you have these thoughts post them to the deletion discussion here- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MADE 2015 World Tour where they might actually do some good in keeping the article from being blanked. I nominated it and gave my vote, I am not the end all be all/ person who will decide if it should be kept. Now as for you questions, yes it is a rule - WP:Too soon. Basically unless the event is certain to happen and is absolutely certain to be important and notable with lots of secondary sources then it is too soon to create a page for it. You may feel it is certain to meet that criteria but the bar for concerts to be considered notable is high- WP:NTOUR and I do not believe it is certain at this time. Peachywink (talk) 14:43, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

@Peachwink how do I add this to the page? Also, I didn't really read your link to the rules, because the top of the page says that they're made up. "Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Consider these views with discretion. Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines." People can object, whether or not you feel like this is your view, or that this is correct, that's your opinion basically. You shouldn't try to prove it by using other people's opinion; that's mine. I want a serious reason, not a reference, as to why an event that is currently notable, announced, in progress, confirmed, needs to wait until it's over, and no longer notable, to be a page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yenamare (talk • contribs) 14:56, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

@Yenamare The too soon tag is an editor created tag to help explain articles that editors come across that don't meet criteria but they feel have a chance to in the future. It's more like a generally agreed upon explanation but yes you can ignore it. What you can't ignore is notability standards. WP:NTOUR is a guideline and the article MADE 2015 World Tour is failing to meet it...by A LOT. From my reading I would say only one or two of the sources can demonstrate importance at this time, those being the ones about ticket demand which are nearly identical articles if you read them because they are both translations for 1 article. The rest are either a writers speculation or are sources about the dates and the fact that the tour will happen. Lots of tours happen my neighbor could go on a state tour with his garage band tweet and post about it on facebook, maybe even make up a trailer, that doesn't make it notable. You need Secondary sources that don't just say a concert is happening but how it is notable, not "will be" but is. If the event is currently notable as you say then find the missing secondary sources and add them. Peachywink (talk) 15:28, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

@Peachwink does YG count as secondary sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yenamare (talk • contribs) 15:35, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

@Yenamare Rather than give you bad information I'm going to say you should go look at WP:SECONDARY. It also mentions what primary sources are so it is a helpful reference. I'm not trying to pass you off, I'm just aware that you probably don't really trust my opinion at this point and it would be better for you to see what was written and make the decision yourself. Peachywink (talk) 15:47, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

@Peachwink I've by now quite the idea of wikipedia's internal working. It's incredibly manmade. To say that, if I believe something makes sense, and I advocate for it enough, and people follow, than I can create a project page to mold my opinion into a "way of". It's helpful as a general Tip, to new editors. But it isn't set in stone, it's not a rule, and the ways in which they can be challenged are many, just as right now. I do see the original point to the Project made on the topic, it makes for reference and diminishes chaos, but it's not perfect. The secondary source segment cited the "author's belief about the primary source, or analyze of it," which would actually set the article to stay if my analyze of the primary sources says that this is notable you know. I actually think it's weird that you referred me to that, it doesn't support your original goal, however that is an academic definition of secondary source. Unless I didn't get the information.Yenamare (talk) 16:07, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

No it meant the writer of the secondary sources belief not the Wikipedia page writers belief. Here's an example: An article that is a review of Sonys statements on their hacking scandal. The statement Sony released is primary, the article talking about how this is just Sony trying to do damage control is secondary. Wikipedia editors are unbiased so we are not supposed to form opinions off of primary sources. If we write in an article saying a group is popular we need a secondary source that says they are popular to cite. Also it is not weird to point you in the direction of information wether or not it agrees with my stance. I know my own arguments and I have no reason to hinder you from being informed when you make yours. Peachywink (talk) 16:19, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

North Korea

Peachywink, I'm glad to see that you agree with me about changes at North Korean articles. I just want to inform you that, beside List of leaders of North Korea, Plumber made his changes at some other articles too. Here they are: ‎

I assume there are some more articles which he changed, it would be wise to check his edit history - [1]. As per articles listed above, would you support reverting of his changes there? Also, please take a look at articles which he recently created - Terentii Shtykov and Soviet Civil Administration --Sundostund (talk) 16:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I just saw that some changes on those articles above are already reverted, so I reverted the rest. I assume you'll agree with that. I also reverted his edits at Provisional People's Committee for North Korea. --Sundostund (talk) 16:56, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I can understand the point the other editor is trying to make, but I think they are reading the context wrong for the articles they are changeing. They are about independent DPRK, after 1948. Also the other editor is going way beyond things that are being stated in the sources when they edit things to say that the Russian officer was the first Supreme leader...it's not simply another way of saying "person in charge" it is clearly a title one that according to all the sources the Russian General was never given. Peachywink (talk) 17:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Nominating New Articles

Nominating New Articles, as you did on Big Bang's Tour, is just disruptive and serves no purpose despite what the folks over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea/Popular culture would advise you to do. You need to let the articles pan themselves out so editors can add to them, not be deleted by the likes of a few closed minded individuals from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea/Popular culture. I hope you'll see that they are nothing more than a bunch of editors who want to maintain articles according their own standards! Standards they have set for the rest of us! Mikepellerin^talk 03:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

if an article is not ready to be posted it can be put in the drafts section until it is. I have talked with the people on the bigbang tour page about the article and what the standards are that it's missing and agree that most of what they are saying is "give us time" but there are actual Wikipedia standards about the cases for which that is allowed and I don't feel this is one of them. Since kpop articles tend to grow into unruly messes I feel some reigning in, ESPECIALLY of the bigger groups pages, is needed. If for no other reason but to set examples for what other groups should be doing with their pages. But that is just my opinion and interpretation of the rules on the matter which is why deletion discussions are and should always be about reaching a majority consensus. Peachywink (talk) 05:16, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Question about a deletion of MADE 2015 World Tour

Hi! few days ago I created MADE 2015 World Tour again, but it's been deleted again. The first time the article was deleted is the lack of information, and the tour did not have an impact. But now it's has, there are many records have been broken and the tour only just begin, even Billboard recently talked about it, I've updated the article but it's seems they didn't even read it and deleted it, so i don't know why to delete it while it's a worthy article. I don't know what the editors need so we can create the article? and how the article could improve if you deleted it every time?

Here some of the records of the tour:

BIGBANG becomes the first-ever Korean boy group to have two concert tours in North America Here's an article
China concerts sold out within 15 minutes Here's an article, three concert in Hong Kong sold out
In Malaysia 1,000 fans showed up to get tickets before 9 day's for online release which made bigbang announce a second concert due to high demand from fans! Here's an article / and here
The first foreign artist to held three consecutive dome tours.

and the tour just started, today it's the third concert in China, there will be more article to come and more people to update it if it's exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CesarLeto (talk • contribs) 16:22, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay first off I didn't delete the article again...the admin did. It's because to bring back a deleted article that soon you pretty much can only do it through a Wikipedia:Deletion review. In order for you to forgo that step you need to be able to show a massive change in the events notability, and we are not talking the notability of one or two concerts we are talking the ENTIRE tours notability because that's what the article is on. If you wait until the tour is done you can also grab enough articles on each individual concert to perhaps get around that or because it's such a big group who knows maybe those complete tour articles or leg articles will appear!

Tour articles are notoriously hard to get approved because they use these standards but there are other problems too with the article. Let's look at the records you pointed out here.

YG-life is a first source and anything on it does not help establish notability because its only on there as promotion material. You'll need another third party source to show it was important. Here's an example: Barbie.com's website says Malibu Barbie is the most popular doll in the world and has a chart to prove it....okay now go find an outside newspaper reporting that fact. That's the third party source Wikipedia cares about.
one of your links is broken the other mentions briefly that there's three nights of sold out concerts that hasn't happened yet, but most of the article is just background on BigBang rather than talking about the concert or tour.
I'm uncertain about this one simply because of the mysterious nature of the website. It says it's a "livewire" where people can share gossip and news...which means it's a blog site? like allkpop? I don't know find me where it says it's a news source and the article writers are journalist and not just random fans.
you didn't give a source...if it's important it will have source otherwise it's usually just fan trivia.

Lastly you say the tour just started and there will be more articles and that is the number one reason the page was deleted to begin with. It's WP:Too soon to be writing the page if the sources aren't out yet and saying they will come is not an option because Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL. I hope this helps you understand why the page was removed for the time being. We are not saying the page can NEVER exist just not for the time being until there is a serious increase in good sources talking in FULL articles about the tour or concerts, preferably after they have happened so more detail can be given.Peachywink (talk) 21:32, 30 May 2015 (UTC)