User talk:Asdklf;/Archive 3

Talkback

Hello, Asdklf;. You have new messages at SmileBlueJay97's talk page.
Message added 06:45, 18 September 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

 SmileBlueJay97  talk  06:45, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Artificial consciousness

Hello, Asdklf. I am open to suggestion about the content I inserted. Charles Dyer is a member of the Flinders AI group, so that might help you. There is a deeper problem here. Are we only to include incumbent research. How will the Wiki reflect up to date developments? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Comp-heur-intel (talk • contribs) 04:27, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! We are able to include "up to date developments" only when those developments are verifiable with "reliable" sourcing from independent third parties, or secondary sources discussing published scholarship, whenever possible. Until your edits are properly sourced I am afraid they are all fair game for reversion. These restrictions serve to protect Wikipedia content at the foremost as encyclopedic content. I hope this has been helpful. Please feel free to ask any further questions. Asdklf; (talk) 04:59, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Hatzolah

Sorry for the mistake I made, Im new to Wikipedia. I know many volunteers of Hatzolah organizations, and one of them founded Passaic Hatzolah. He told me that a second one opened and took away his callers. I confirmed this story with Passaic residents. Anyway, if you want to know any info on Hatzalah or Shomrim organizations, feel free to contact me. Thank you very much JoelBuchbinder (talk) 20:42, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Unfortunately Wikipedia policy does not allow first-hand research to be included as all assertions must be verifiable. Thank you for contacting me and please feel free to do so with any questions. Asdklf; (talk) 19:14, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Rep. Marcia Fudge (D) Ohio

Thank you for your message ref. my edit to the page on Rep. Fudge. I disagree that YouTube can be a valid source for a direct quote from a politician if the full video of the remarks are posted and in this case they were. That said, I have taken the time to use two other sources along with providing a citation to the full video of Rep. Fudge's comments and have reposted the edit. Rep. Fudge's unfortunate remarks were not quoted out of context and are reflected in the other two sources added. I appreciate the correction and will ensure in the future that more than one source is used when possible. Would a video from CSPAN, CBS, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, FOX, CNN, CNBC, NPR or other news sources that post their content to YouTube be seen as acceptable and if so why in this case was the direct video as posted by PJ Media questioned? Anyhow, again, thank you for the correction and I have taken action to include other sources for the remarks by Rep. Fudge. Have a great day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Williamsweat (talk • contribs) 14:32, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for changing your edits. I noticed you have also directly cited tweets on the Maria Chappelle-Nadal page and would hope you understand that those fall under much the same conditions for reversion as citing Youtube as a source. The policy at Wikipedia, whose function is foremost that of an encyclopedia, has a high standard of asking assertions to be verifiable, not only true. Similarly, the means of such verifiability are reliable sources who are independent, third-parties. Exceptional primary sources may be used, but they must be interpreted only through separate secondary-source materials. In this way Wikipedia content can be relied upon as neutral and informed. You may also want to see the Manual of Style as some of your edits do not seem to reflect the copy-editing which is typical of Wikipedia. You may also want to look at other American politicians' pages to see the typical stylings. Thank you, happy editing! Asdklf; (talk)

No worries. I included the direct quote and citation from Sen. Chappelle-Nadal's twitter page is the assertion that the Senators own words direct from her page are not enough to be used as a citation? I will take a look at the information you provided - no question and I appreciate it. I will say that in viewing several other pages on American politicians I found similar citations given however will do my best to ensure that things are written clearly and as concisely as possible. Enjoy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Williamsweat (talk • contribs) 17:34, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi

I added what I did to prove a point to a silly coventry city fan who has edited the wasps chairman section to the same as the ccfc chairmans section, as a result of the buyout news today. You undid it before I could chamge it back lol — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taffdan (talk • contribs) 20:25, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

SM Entertainment

I changed Kris to the former category because he is no longer a member of EXO. He may still be part of SM Entertainment, but he is, in fact, a former member of EXO as stated by SM when they said they will continue as 11. If Kris is considered inactive because he is still under the entertainment label then Jessica should be labeled inactive also. However, she is no longer a member of SNSD just as Kris is no longer a member of EXO.

Carlton Palmer reversion

Hi,

You removed my edit because you said it needed sourcing. It was, however, a news event that you can easily find from news archiving services like this one:

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-110875236.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Williamsij75 (talk • contribs) 15:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Opie Radio

Hello, Asdklf. I am open to suggestion about the content I inserted. I felt that the existing content in the section regarding the "Jason Ellis Show" was not fair to either party. After undoing my changes, the page refers to it as Jason Ellis "trashing" Opie & Anthony. This is not completely accurate. First, in fact, Opie & Anthony trashed Jason Ellis and then it exploded into both shows feuding. Whoever is "right" is up for debate, but it is important to note the full scope of the feud rather than just part of the story which makes one side look more "right" than the other. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.47.217.132 (talk) 03:14, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

On second glance it appears that either comment is unnecessary, and somewhat unencyclopedic, so I re-edited it and just put "hosted by Jason Ellis." Hopefully this will solve the problem. Thank you for bringing that to my attention though. Asdklf; (talk) 18:35, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

November 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to YG Family 2014 World Tour: Power may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• * Team B ([[Ikon (band)|Ikon]](Japan and South Korea only)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:37, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Musk

Hi, Surely merely your opinion does not dictate whether a piece of writing is 'worthy'. Surley the correct protocol would be to post this view on the talk section and see if fellow writers also believe is reduces he quality of the article, but at present it violates no rules by Wikipedia, and adds information to the article, information that is science/philosophy related and therefore relevant to the article. Heuh0 (talk) 04:53, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Please review Wikipedia policy regarding sourcing, especially reliable sourcing, as that pretty much dictates what is allowed to remain included in Wikipedia. The inclusion of judgements, like yours on whether the company had made worthwhile contributions to the space industry, do not belong in an encyclopedia, and especially not on biographies of living people. The standard for inclusion is higher than just "relevancy," it is verifiability. Hopefully this has been helpful. Feel free to contact me with further concerns. Asdklf; (talk) 17:00, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I can accept that, what I don't understand why you have removed the piece on Musks views on intelligent life in the philosophy section, its particularly relevant as its extremely unusual for someone in science to go against the general science consensus, this is therefore worth noting. I also included a video of him saying in the reference section, but you removed it. Heuh0 (talk) 22:24, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

As mentioned previously, verifiability from reliable, third-party sources is needed to back assertions. Your addition also had a fragmented sentence and a mispelling. It is also necessary to make sure that okay, maybe this man doesn't believe in intelligent life outside of earth and maybe he is wrong, but how relevant is that to his biography? Is it noticeable enough, given the current climate of perspectives on that view, to be included? Is this view held by this man that much of an outlier that it deserves a mention? Please think through whether the inclusion would overrepresent the significance of this particular belief. Asdklf; (talk) 23:16, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Copyright checks when performing AfC reviews

Hello Asdklf;. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to you in particular.

The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when hallmarks of copyvios in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered.

If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied from the draft, rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the Wayback Machine is very useful for sussing that out.)

If you do find a copyright violation, please do not decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Wikipedia to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using {{db-g12|url=URL of source}}. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with {{subst:copyvio|url=URL of source}}.

Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with weasel words; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors.

I hope this message finds you well and thanks again you for your efforts in this area. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC).

       Sent via--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:35, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! Asdklf; (talk) 20:44, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Akdong Musician

I undid your reversion because I can't find any proof that "Best Song of April" is an actual award in the Gaon Chart K-Pop Awards. If this is really an award, can you provide a source? --Random86 (talk) 01:02, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

According to the page "Award finalists are based on the previous year's Gaon year-end chart performance according to data for sales of songs and albums" so I think it might actually be based on the first-place chart ranking. Asdklf; (talk) 03:44, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, it looks like the #1 song of each month is part of the Artist of the Year (Song) award. But, they aren't any sources for Akdong Musician getting the award because they probably technically don't get it until January 2015. I will put the award back on their page though. --Random86 (talk) 06:35, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Add category "political corruption" on Mariano Rajoy

I agree. I added a new section on talk page. Thanks. --188.76.75.104 (talk) 16:08, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Tiffany Alvord

Hello,

I agree completely with what you just wrote in the edit summary for your reversion on Tiffany Alvord's article. A moment ago I left a message on Scalhotrod's talk page concerning this issue. Please read it. I think this source is good enough for the infobox, and probably that way people will be less determined to add that information to the body of the article. Please let me know what you think, preferably on Scalhotrod's page, or on Alvord's talk page. Thanks in advance... Dontreader (talk) 02:00, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Music video appearances

Hi Asdklf, even if that is a part of "Filmography", I still find it too trivial and not necessarily need to be included on Wikipedia. I mean, it does not really add much values to Yoona's or any other artists' accomplishments. I've been trying to cut down redundancy in these articles, so what do you think?

See my previous discusions here User talk:TerryAlex#Encyclopedic? and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Drmies/Archive_74#Taeyeon --TerryAlex (talk) 16:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I just don't think every single detail has to be on Wikipedia. So let me know.--TerryAlex (talk) 16:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Neither do I believe Wikipedia should be a big bloated blob of inclusion but a good portion of Yoona's career was originally based on her inclusion in music videos and I think her presence is notable. The risk of overly exclusionary practices is actually leaving out components of a well-rounded biography which are often different for each individual. That same sentiment is also the source of my disagreement with some parts of the discussions you linked me, but the whole point of Wikipedia is precisely for different people's different methodologies to mix and form a more perfect balance, which is why I haven't spoken before when I see you trimming other articles. I think in this case the videography should be kept. Asdklf; (talk) 17:15, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I think Yoona's acting career is the section that needs to be expanded, which is what I'm trying to do now. But I'm doing it slowly as I'm trying to go back and re-read those old articles. Regarding the music videos, she only appeared in 9, what is so notable about it?--TerryAlex (talk) 17:21, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The number isn't the important part. This is how she originally became known to the public. Asdklf; (talk) 17:24, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

We might indicate that then within the article somewhere, with some reliable sources. Like "At the beginning of her career, Yoona was first introduced to the public through various appearances in music videos..." Well, I'm going backwards in time to chug out the relevant information, but just "a list of appearances" to me is still redundant, and cannot really say anything.--TerryAlex (talk) 17:28, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

And I think this is a problem with a lot of K-pop articles. Having whole lists of "appearances" without any indications on why they are relevant.--TerryAlex (talk) 17:32, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with this statement of yours: "The risk of overly exclusionary practices is actually leaving out components of a well-rounded biography which are often different for each individual."

---> because each individual's career is different and only unique to that person, but the point is we gotta point out those "differences" and why they are relevant and unique to them. If a random reader just reads the article, he looks at the list of appearances and doesn't really get what is the point of having it.--TerryAlex (talk) 17:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Found an old article, http://newsen.com/news_view.php?uid=200707061802071001 and I think it indicates that the "Magic Castle" MV was in 2005 and not 2004 (like how it is on Yoona's article right now). Well, it's not important whether it's 2004 or 2005, and I might be wrong...but see? another problem with those lists is that most of the time, they are very poorly referenced, and overtime, the accuracy of the information gets distorted. If someone just want to vandalize the article, there is no way to verify its accuracy.

I want to mention another point here is I see some redundant info on Wikipedia (okay, this is an opinion and it might be different among each of us), but then the opposite side of it is some important info never gets mentioned at all either. Like in the case of Yoona, she was first introduced to the public through TVXQ's music video and/or some CFS, but that fact was never mentioned at all in her article. And that is what we want to fix. --TerryAlex (talk) 20:45, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Asdklf;, I do hope you see my point though. We might differ in opinions but I'm sure we all mean well. I haven't heard back from you...so let me know because I am always up for discussion.--TerryAlex (talk) 02:55, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

@TerryAlex:So we seem to agree about Yoona? I would argue that videography sections are valuable even if they do not serve a specific historic purpose like Yoona's. Asdklf; (talk) 20:27, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

@TerryAlex: I don't think I know enough about Yoona and Girl's Generation to really contribute to this discussion. This kind of section is on many K-pop articles, and I don't have a problem with them in general. --Random86 (talk) 02:25, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

@Random86: Thanks Random--TerryAlex (talk) 02:55, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The reason why I deleted the "Music Video Appearances" for all GG's articles, because just looking at those lists alone, they really serve no purpose for me. I still think they are not very important, because I consider them to be guest appearances as well. Even for Yoona, because like I said, we can definitely indicate that in her "Early life" section (and this is important); so everyone would know that is how she was first known to the public. But I do respect fellow editors' opinions, so if you find it important, we can always revert it back :).

So Keeping the MV section is fine, but I would argue that we need to include the references for it. As time passes, we really have no verification on its accuracy anymore. (like 2004 vs. 2005)

I definitely don't like "Endorsement" or "Modeling" sections on Wikipedia though. We can indicate for example, "Yoona (or Krystal), started their career by appearing in music videos and commercials..." But having lists of endorsements on here is just advertising for me. And that is why I get frustrated with articles like "List of Girl's Generation's endorsements".

Hope you see my point and have a good day! --TerryAlex (talk) 01:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

@TerryAlex: This may have just been your terminology but yeah if you were to look at the table "alone" of course it wouldn't have much of an impact but Wikipedia articles equate to more than the sum of their parts only when they correctly inform with a well-rounded and complete picture of, like here, the person's career. Like the "list of endorsements" or similar things inform about snsd's promotional impact and the commercial side of their career which shows their impact on industry in Korea as it is, tremendous. and in my opinion through the inclusion of such articles we create a more well-rounded like eco-system of korea-related content. Asdklf; (talk) 15:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't mean to totally omit it out, because it is an important fact that they have many endorsements, but we can summarize the impact in their article, like "They have done many endorsements and this shows their popularity...", something along that line (with some references of course). I just don't like the idea of listing out every single endorsement. Because just looking at it like that, it is plainly advertising.--TerryAlex (talk) 15:54, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Or we may include (facts) such as "They were ranked as the top celebrity for endorsement in 2010" (I'm just making things up here). You know, facts that show their popularity and impact, and not just a list of endorsements. This is what I mean.--TerryAlex (talk) 16:26, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

See, I was looking at Girls' Generation article just now and saw a few facts such as "They were the most sough-out endorser for 2009" or "A survey conducted in December 2010 saw 409 out of 741 marketing employees choosing Girls' Generation as the model with the most influence over consumers." These facts are definitely worth keeping, but I would have trimmed out a lot other stuff in that section.--TerryAlex (talk) 16:32, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

@TerryAlex: so maybe the difference lies literally in what we use wikipedia for but to me that list shows the corporations who used snsd is factual not promotional. those sentences you gave as examples would be nice additions but i don't think that means the list should be deleted. like sometimes it is worthwhile just to keep records for the sake of it being of use or curiosity to someone. like i get wikipedia not descending into trivia central but things like this have their use to different people. Asdklf; (talk) 22:22, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I know why we disagree now. It's because I do think Wikipedia is not a "Trivia Center" and not everything has to be on here.

We can make the argument that these are "parts" to a complete picture, but a lot of the time, I look at them, and say to myself, "what is the point of having this?"

See...When I say I don't like something, I don't mean that we should completely take it out, but I think there should be a more succint way of doing it. Biography, to me, is an overall "yet complete" picture of someone's career. The excessive details would fit better within a fanpage. I rather only see important facts being explained or elaborated within the article, explanations that make that person's career unique. Sometimes, I see too many lists, yet not as many important explanation for them.

A list of "endorsement" or "guest appearances" is trivial and advertising to me, I find facts like "they are the most sought-out endorser" more important, because they summarize that list and explain an overall picture on why they are relevant regarding someone's career. [Of course, not only good facts, but important bad facts may also be included]

I think bio is about the "bigger picture/long-term perspective"; and that is when the explanation becomes important to me. I don't mean excessive explanations (because then it becomes trivial too), but if you don't explain it, how would anyone (if you are not a fan) had known that Yoona was first introduced to the public through appearances in music videos? Or that Krystal was known for her cold character? The point is to make the readers understand the overall picture of someone's career (in an unbiased way). Listing out every appearances doesn't say much (and that is why I think it's trivial).

And like I said earlier, these lists are very unreliable too. Out of 120 endorsements listed in the "List of Girls' Generation's endorsement", there are only 11 references, and most of them are from Allkpop, Soshified and WonderfulGeneration. How are we supposed to know if it's reliable or not? The "Filmography" article is completely unreferenced. Even the "Awards" article (which we have to keep of course) is missing a lot of references too. As time passes, the accuracy to these information get distorted and we cannot verify its authenticity anymore. Putting them on our watchlist is a "temporary thing", because down the line, it's really hard to verify its accuracy.

We can disagree on many things (which is what discussion is all about, isn't it?) but I'm sure we can agree that these articles are missing too many reliable sources. It's definitely a problem in the long-run.

Sorry for writing too much again, but happy to know why we disagree now (you also know why we disagreed regarding Wendy earlier)

Happy editing! And thanks so much for the discussion! --TerryAlex (talk) 04:50, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

@TerryAlex: I think you misunderstood my comment about trivia, I DON'T want it to descend into trivia. I just don't see this type of listing as anything to do with being a fan. I'm not a fan, but I've used that page before for research's sake like to me they seem two separate elements. There is nothing particularly complementary about the page. As to verifiability, yeah definitely an issue. But the collation of data isn't promotional and it isn't excessive explanation because (if reliably sourced) the data is just factual. I don't think Krystal being known for her cold character deserves a place on her page. It is literally irrelevant to me as a reader unless there is some sort of "public image" section. Asdklf; (talk) 23:49, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I was referring to Krystal's "Public Image" section on her page (sorry for being misleading). See, we disagree and that's fine but I'm sure there are other people who view the "Endorsement" section as advertising/promo as well. I don't say that you are a fan of anyone, but I'm saying to me, there are quite things on Wikipedia that should have stayed on a fan page instead. Cheers!--TerryAlex (talk) 00:31, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I think I have expressed myself enough, and I don't like to keep on rambling. Thank you so much for the discussion. I surely had fun discussing, and now I do know in what perspective we are seeing differently. And that's fine. No matter how different we may think, I'm sure you and I both mean well, so no hard feelings alrighty? Have a nice day, buddy and happy editing!--TerryAlex (talk) 00:53, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Mighty Warriors

Nice one Asdklf&#59 so how do i become one of those 'Other Editors' as I doubt there are any working on the article. Simply put, the article is wrong and will remain wrong until it is changed. Mitchiemasha (talk) 04:47, 9 December 2014 (UTC) Mitchiemasha

@Mitchiemasha:Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! As this encyclopedia is live and thus publicly accessible, it is not appropriate to leave an editor's opinions about the page on the page. Rather than simply criticizing the current structure of the article, Wikipedia believes editors should be bold when it comes to solving problems. Since you are familiar with the subject matter, perhaps you would like to improve the content? Asdklf; (talk) 16:40, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Edit Removal Reply

Hi Asdklf, I appreciate your work here on Wikipedia, I see why you removed the edit on The Field's Wikipedia page, I'm actually new here so my editing skills aren't that perfect, which is probably the reason for the edit removal.

No hard feelings though, the fact that you spotted the edit fault in the first place was pretty good, so my lesson is to not put unwanted or useless information on a Wikipedia page that is not related to the subject, although that remix was actually released, I just need to word it correctly.

Thank you for messaging me and have a good day.

TheSloanRanger (talk) 00:01, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Heo Ga-yoon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page BtoB. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Zico

Hi, just a question: Do we really need to mention in Zico's Wikipedia article that he is the LEADER of Block B? The source doesn't really say it, and although I know it's fact (trust me, he's my ultimate bias in Block B), I felt like that mentioning that he's the LEADER of Block B is Fan-related material. Thanks! I was just trying to de-fan some of the article as it's not necessary to have such detail in it. Especially for Zico. Tibbydibby (talk) 14:16, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

@Tibbydibby: He is the leader of Block B. It is not a fan-appointed position, it is an official position. Examples here:

http://mwave.interest.me/enewsworld/en/article/74476/blockb-zico-expresses-desire-to-promote-as-soloist

http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/k-town/6177417/block-b-her-video-mv-ostrich

http://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/news/article/Article.aspx?aid=2998809

Here is an example which references how the position was a record-label appointment: http://www.kpopstarz.com/articles/5101/20120220/block-b-leader-zico-shave-head.htm

Group positions in K-pop are often really shallow but leadership positions actually aren't, even in K-pop. Asdklf; (talk) 00:52, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

@Asdklf;: Even if he is cited as the Leader of Block B in many RELIABLE sources, it isn't encyclopedic to say that he's the Leader of Block B. If Zico gets the title of Leadership in Wikipedia articles, then so do Leeteuk, Taeyeon, Onew, Victoria Song, CL, G-Dragon, Doojoon and the like. We need to keep all K-pop articles consistent with what should/shouldn't be mentioned. You should discuss with the rest of us on the WikiProject Discussion if it's something really concerning for you. But I do know for a fact that mentioning who's the leader in such articles aren't Encyclopedic. Tibbydibby (talk) 21:58, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

@Tibbydibby: yeah all those people are leaders why wouldn't they be listed as such? I must be missing some component which would make that unencyclopedic... Asdklf; (talk) 23:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Bobby (rapper)

Template:Bobby (rapper) has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Drmies (talk) 16:47, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• I am reverting your unexplained or incorrectly explained edits on Bobby (rapper). For instance, you don't see any primary sources? There are about fifty of them in the sales department. No more unreliable sources? There are three Kpopstarz links, and one to something called Joy 24--please prove that these are reliable. You also restored a navigation template with completely useless links without any explanation, and reinserted a long list of YouTube videos--you may know that Wikipedia is not a fan site or a repository for links. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 03:01, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

@Drmies:Well, re: primary sources, per Wikipedia:Record charts's listing for Korea, Gaon is the reliable source for music sales. The reasoning behind that is available both on the Wikipedia record charts page. The certifications which make it reliable under that policy are the same which disqualify it from needing removal under primary source guidelines: the primary source itself is independent and unbiased. It is the equivalent of Billboard. How are we supposed to record the sales of any music otherwise?

re:Kpopstarz and Joy 24: KpopStarz [is a reliable source http://www.kpopstarz.com/about-us]. I don't know if any other discussion about this took place which disqualifies it, but from my experience it is what it claims to be and fits within the acceptable parameter of BLP sourcing. If discussion consensus finds otherwise, so be it, but until then I think it should stand. Joy News 24 says they are "[인터넷 미디어의 선두주자인 아이뉴스24 는 단순히 소식을 전하는 미디어가 아니라 독자에게 가치 있는 정보와 인사이트를 주는 미디어를 지향하고 있습니다 http://www.inews24.com/inews24_info/info_inews24_ceo.htm] simply conveying the news, giving readers valuable insight and information to its readers." Yeah Korean media is tricky, but this site has triggered no red flags for me as to its reliability. Of course that doesn't mean it is designated reliable by our community and likewise discussion may find otherwise, but one unsure link hardly qualifies as necessary for a page-wide tag.

I restored a relevant template to his page that references more about his career within iKON which is pretty central to his career. Like I don't understand your opposition to the template. If you want to discuss deletion on it, fine, but as it stands it is really relevant to his page.

Also would you mind refraining from calling things "template porn." I get the frustration behind the edit summary but as the creator of that and other templates you may deem unnecessary and "useless," but I find that term a little demeaning and incongruous with the context. Asdklf; (talk) 04:22, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Askdklf, you're a pretty decent editor, as far as I can tell--but there's not really frustration there. Then again, if you understand it, then why make such templates? The one for iKON is particularly silly: what is the point? "Officially" the band doesn't even exist, though that nonsense about pre-debut and hiatus and comeback and what not is just so much PR language. It has a grand total of, what, six links now? All of which are already in the various articles--though, you should note, that Bigbang content isn't, and that's a serious flaw; in fact, there's nothing that suggests those links should be kept. Anyway, thanks for your response. Drmies (talk) 06:12, 29 December 2014 (UTC)