User talk:Raykyogrou0/Archive 2

Talk:Charice Pempengco
After seeing discussions in WT:RM, I realize that you have a right to relist your own move discussion, although I see it as risky. I shouldn't have denied your right to relist your nomination without proper rationale. At least someone uninvolved relisted a discussion, but I think I may owe you an apology for improper reversal. But if apology is unnecessary, and you figured that you don't need to relist one discussion, then you can disregard this message. --George Ho (talk) 22:11, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, I see. Raykyogrou0  ( Talk ) 02:21, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

please respond on Talk:Philtrust Bank
It is the third bank to be established in the Philippines, after Bank of the Philippine Islands and Philippine National Bank. It is the first private bank with no state-sponsorship, unlike the two older banks before it the Banco Espanol-Filipino under Spanish regime and the Philippine National Bank which was the state bank under American colonial administration.

The bank is one of the businesses owned by prominent Chinese-Filipino businessman, Emilio Yap.

I have edited the article to reflect this notability, and will continue to research sources to prove its notability. This is a well-established bank in the history of Philippine finance!

"Throughout its 96 years of banking service, Philtrust Bank has acquired a reputation for conservatism and reliability and has enjoyed the trust and confidence of the business community and the general public. This policy has been its guiding principle throughout its banking history.

Philtrust Bank has been consistently rated as one of the most outstanding banks in the country especially for its liquidity position. It is one of the few commercial banks without any local and foreign loan or guarantee obligations."

i will continue editing this article in the next few days, KEEP this article and DO NOT DELETE..

Thanks! --—-— .: Seth_Nimbosa :. (talk • contribs) 12:10, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Philippines banks prods and AFDs
Please see comments at Articles for deletion/Banco Filipino. Several of these articles were lacking WP Philippines and WP Finance Talk page tags. Those need to be added and left before prodding a bank article. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:51, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

First Consolidated Bank
I added a lot more information, sources, and a quote to this article. So I removed your proposed deletion tag. It was actually easy to fix the issues. Please avoid tagging articles for proposed deletion, without checking online for possible sources. Bearian (talk) 16:25, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:PROD. Raykyogrou0  ( Talk ) 16:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I came here to say what User:Bearian has just said. And you are misreading WP:PROD, WP:PROD does not say stick a 7-day delete notice on articles which are poorly sourced rather than improving articles. Please remember that the editors who created articles are often not still around. When you make a bulk deletion move against 20 or 30 Philippine banks it is impossible for the small number of active WP Philippines and WP Finance editors to suddenly jump to it.
 * Perhaps you should withdraw from prodding/Afding articles for a couple of months and create an article or two of your own. That is only a suggestion. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:23, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * My point is that it doesn't say anywhere that people are prohibited from prodding an article if it is deemed unnotable. Perhaps normally, when deprodding people would actually give a reason and not just say "deprodding because bulk prodding should not be used".  Raykyogrou0  ( Talk ) 10:20, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Please feel free to nominate non-notable (NN), difficult to source articles. However, as WP:PROD says, "PROD must only be used if no opposition is to be expected...." (emphasis added).  Opposition can be expected for the deletions of many articles from the Philippines.  I can see how many of these banks are just NN, but I found sources very easily for FCB from a simple Google search. Bearian (talk) 18:44, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I made the comment above "create an article or two of your" - I see you did actually create an article Digimon Adventure (video game) in 2013. Which appears to be totally unsourced. And yet your are defending prods and AFDs against banks in the Philippines top 20 banks? And as to comment to User:Davey2010 below, you said yourself in the AFDs that "no sources had been added" by Prod. That is a clean up comment. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:15, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * @Bearian: Well, I didn't expect opposition. @Oculi: I'd like to point that I didn't have any experience back then and probably would have not created it at a later time since it contains a lot of OR.  Btw, exactly which of these banks that you are referring to are the "top 20 banks"?  Do you even know which banks are in the top?  "No sources were added", as in how am I supposed to see the bank's notability if no proof of such was given and was simply deprodded as "bulk prod should not be used" by you?  Raykyogrou0  ( Talk ) 09:00, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Well that's a shame, you've only contributed one article to Wikipedia and you regret that. The Top 20 banks will be listed by asset size in any number of financial reports. Unfortunately those are paid subscriber sources such as Bloomberg etc. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:29, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, so in other words, "No.". Raykyogrou0  ( Talk ) 05:23, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Bank AFD's
Raykyogrou0,

In future please read and use WP:BUNDLE before nominating 20+ articles,

and It should go with out saying you should use AFD for deletion purposes, Not for clean up solutions,

Thanks! - →Davey 2010→ →Talk to me!→  05:05, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It should go without saying that I nominated the articles because they weren't deemed notable. Not because I wanted them to be cleaned up.  Raykyogrou0  ( Talk ) 10:20, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That's complete bollox, You didn't look for sources whatsoever, You've simply sat there, nominated 20 articles, and expected everyone one else to clean them up for you! ......


 * I'm dumb founded as to how you can sit there and defend yourself when it's staring everyone blatantly in the face .....


 * - →Davey 2010→ →Talk to me!→  05:05, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm dumbfounded as how you can just assume things without any actual proof. Seriously, what makes you think I didn't search for sources?  What makes you think I wanted these articles cleaned up?  If I wanted them cleaned up, I would have tagged them as such, not nominated them.  Raykyogrou0  ( Talk ) 09:00, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Because you didn't find the sources that were easily findable, and because of the seconds between nominations. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:26, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I've already told you that I performed simple searches prior to prodding. Raykyogrou0  ( Talk ) 05:23, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Well you didn't "perform" your searches hard enough then did you....
 * Anyway please re-read WP:AFD before nominating in future since I'm sure we don't want a repeat,
 * Thanks! - →Davey 2010→ →Talk to me!→  06:11, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * A repeat of you frivolously voting "keep" without even assessing the articles individually? Raykyogrou0  ( Talk ) 06:25, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Oricon charts
"83,371" are the sales which were updated by the user Whatcha know bout us. Go and bother this user and ask him where he got his source instead of me. --77.184.234.23 (talk) 17:13, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You were the one who re-added them hence the bothering of you, thanks. Raykyogrou0  ( Talk ) 01:00, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Speculation
I suggest you let the tag stay. An edit war over a cleanup tag is just about the most pointless thing I can imagine, and I legitimately feel that it belongs there. If you think it doesn't, that's fine, but the tag should stay until there's consensus to remove it at the talk page. Maybe other people will agree with you. I'm not unreasonable, and I'll go with any consensus on the talk page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:16, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you have anything to say that the specs added actually is speculation? The source seems pretty reputable and you saying their "unnamed sources who may be lying" can even constitute WP:OR. I will remove the tag again, unless you can actually prove that the information posted by that website is unverifiable—in that case the whole paragraph should be removed.  Raykyogrou0  ( Talk ) 10:13, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: File:GirlsOnTopBoA.gif
Hello Raykyogrou0. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of File:GirlsOnTopBoA.gif, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Files are not the same format (gif vs. png). Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 12:07, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Alright, thanks. I thought that the "Redundant" criteria also applied to duplicate pictures of different format.  Raykyogrou0  ( Talk ) 14:14, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Gaon Music Chart homepage.png
 Thanks for uploading File:Gaon Music Chart homepage.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:36, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Gangsta.
There is an ongoing RM discussion. Comment there. --George Ho (talk) 20:59, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Burma (Myanmar) which affects the recently renamed page Myanmar. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. Sawol (talk) 16:02, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Gangsta.
I started another RM; make your decision. --George Ho (talk) 04:46, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Jekyll & Hyde
Please see Talk:Jekyll & Hyde (TV series) before reverting this page. You're not a casual editor, you should know the WP:BRD drill. 202.81.249.233 (talk) 13:19, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, so much for "discuss". 202.81.249.233 (talk) 13:43, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * See WP:INTREF: "All quotations and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged must include an inline citation of a source that directly supports the material." 202.81.249.233 (talk) 14:03, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Girls' Generation discography
Hi, I understand why you reverted my changes to the album sales. I got the new figures from this website http://www.generasia.com/wiki/Love_%26_Peace_(Girls%27_Generation). It provides consistently accurate sales figures for many Japanese albums but unfortunately doesn't provide references. Therefore, it is pretty safe to say that my edit is correct but I just have no idea how to access the oricon sales charts seeing as they are really hard to traverse through to find old sales data, perhaps you could help?--EnderAtreides117 (talk) 01:04, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Need help
We need more neutral opinions here. I've followed instructions here and at Feedback request service and to used the user lists there. I've sent a message for neutral input to everyone active recently and available for 10 per month or more on the lists in the Language and linguistics, Media, the arts, and architecture, Society-sports-culture, Unsorted and All-RFCs lists, none of whom have interacted with me before, that I can remember. Have done my best to act in good faith to try to get more neutral opinions. Please help! Thanx! SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:41, 25 April 2016 (UTC)