User talk:Carlobunnie/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Sources - Soompi / Allkpop

Hello there! I noticed you've recently used Soompi as a source for a recent edit to BTS, and that you left a message on someone else's talk page asking why Soompi is unreliable. You can read through WP:KO/RS for more information on this if you like, and particuliary this section of the talk page for more in regards to Soompi and Allkpop in particular. Alexanderlee (talk) 17:51, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

@Alexanderlee: Where are these decisions usually made? And who are the people deciding them for the rest of us? Like I commented to that Snowflake user, I understand not using AKP for obvious reasons and I don't ever nor have I ever taken their words as any sort of viable news source. But I have to differ as regards Soompi and I wish whoever made/makes these decisions would reconsider. The few instances in the past that I used Soompi as Eng trans sources (prior to being told they aren't acceptable), all the articles I used were indeed accurate english translations of the original korean news articles, which Soompi also linked at the bottom of their posts showing where their news came from. There are ocassions where no english articles whatsoever are available from accepted sites like TKH or YHN (I trawl the sites daily sometimes for news) and Soompi is the only english translation available. Idk what I have to do to prove Soompi's reliability but I wouldn't keep on with this if I didn't believe it's wholly inaccurate to put them on the same level as AKP. Perhaps in the past there may have been articles that decried their being a viable news source but I can attest to the fact that at least as regards BTS their reporting is solid, hence why I believe we should be allowed to use them at least for BTS news.Carlobunnie (talk) 19:09, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

@Carlobunnie: Decissions are made via discussions on the talk page. Soompi don’t always cite where they got their information from, and are too opinionated. If a source is cited in the Soompi article, you can use that as a source, but I’d recommend you translate to make sure it says what information you’re adding. They can’t only be used for BTS, you can’t have one rule for one and another rule for the rest. If there’s no reliable source then there’s no reliable source, that can’t always be helped. Alexanderlee (talk) 19:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

@Alexanderlee: I only talked about using them as an ENG source for BTS because as regards their articles for BTS the news is accurate and reliable, not "too opinionated" like you mentioned which sounds like an over-generalization to me. Also, I'm still new to learning the rules so I asked without knowing that sources go across the board (one rule for all). I always use Kor sources first & translate everything to make sure the information matches so no need to recommend I do that. Sometimes it's just nice/convenient to have an english trans source (saying this based on feedback from people I direct to wiki pages when they ask about kpop related stuff), but I'll leave it alone now. Carlobunnie (talk) 20:25, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

It isn’t Wikipedia’s responsibility to translate references, if references are cited in another langeuage then users can translate this themselves if they wish. I said “too opinionated” as this was a reason given on the talk page for why Soompi and Allkpop aren’t used. A recommendation is simply that, I wasn’t meaning to insult you if that’s how you took it then I apologise :) Alexanderlee (talk) 20:29, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

@Alexanderlee: I was thinking more along the lines of since it's an ENG page entry that ENG sources would improve the experience for users. And ik where the 'too opinionated' came from, I chkd that page after you linked it. I didn't take it as an insult, but it came across to me as though you were implying I hadn't been checking translations to be sure of my sources before using them.Carlobunnie (talk) 20:38, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Ah I’m sorry, I wasn’t trying to imply that. I’ve just seen korean sources being used before to cite information, but when I’ve looked at the source it doesn’t mention what it’s supposed to be citing so I just mention it whenever I mention using the sources cited from Soompi :) Have a good day/night Alexanderlee (talk) 20:46, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

BTS

Hi,

I didn’t mean to revert your edit on BTS. Your contribution was wonderful. It was just that another user that reverted the article to an edit that wasn’t well-written so I reverted it back. It doesn’t mean that what you contributed wasn’t useful!

Thank you! AhnSoonKyung (talk) 01:26, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

@AhnSoonKyung: The information still disappeared though. I'm all for a more concise, aesthetic display if you will, but the updated info got eaten. Are the records they set with the Japanese single not worth being noted in the section either? We can mention the MDR achievements on the US charts but not the Jpn MD ones? Carlobunnie (talk) 01:43, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• i had just simply reverted it back to the one before it was reverted, so changes made after that was going to disappear. Feel free to re-add them if you feel they are worthy. -A

@AhnSoonKyung: Sorry if I sounded snippy with you, I was really tired. I forgot reverting a page does that and was gonna add it back myself today but I saw you did it already so thank you Carlobunnie (talk) 20:42, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: I Need U (BTS song) has been accepted

I Need U (BTS song), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting 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 .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Bkissin (talk) 21:52, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

She changed

You changed my post StudySandra (talk) 17:07, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

@StudySandra: Yes. Because it was incorrect. The infobox for singles has a specific format to be followed. Your edit did not fit the template format. The date you inserted was also incorrect. Even if I didn't change it, another editor would have. I just happened to be around to see what you did. - Carlobunnie (talk) 17:14, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay let me say a thing

It's was released on November 24,2017 not on September 18! StudySandra (talk) 17:18, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

@StudySandra: The Music Video was released in November. The SONG was released in September, which is what the date in the infobox is for: song release date, not mv date. Please do your research properly and understand what it is you are editing before making any yourself. Or you can post on the talk page of the article if you have an issue w something stated in the article and get a response from other editors before changing something prematurely. - Carlobunnie (talk) 17:23, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Aisshhh I forgot

I should remember that but the date was teaser of the song? And I am new here !StudySandra (talk) 17:26, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

@StudySandra: The date was the worldwide release date of LYH that Mic Drop was first released on as the intro paragraph states. That's the date that will show up in the infobox. And yes I know you're new. That's why I said it's best if you ask first about a change you want to make/do proper research to make sure your edits won't be undone if they're inaccurate. - Carlobunnie (talk) 17:37, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

These changes were necessary

If you click into "Billboard charts" link in the MIC Drop article, you are directed to a page about normal billboards, not even the magazine. --Mateusz Wijata (Talk) 08:05, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

@MatiW97: Well strangely enough, yesterday my browser was directing me to the Billboard magazine page (I checked before reverting) which was why I undid your edits (because it didn't make sense why you'd link to a diff BB page when I was seeing the right one) so that was the cause for my mixup there. I would never purposely undo a correct edit. Checking back the history today, it opens to the page you mentioned so I have no idea what my browser is doing tbh. I will point out however, that you were still linking to the wrong BB chart article but another editor fixed it with the right link. Thanks for reaching out though. - Carlobunnie (talk) 14:01, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I thank you too for the reply. Anyway, my browser also sometimes shows me the wrong revision of a article after clicking, even if it was reverted... --Mateusz Wijata (Talk) 15:36, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

This blocked user is asking that her block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Carlobunnie (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

UTRS appeal #22109 was submitted on Jul 18, 2018 14:17:18. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 14:17, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for removing the controvercy part of the bts page. It was based on an article filled with misinformation and propaganda. I made an article just to thank you so thanks! Chocoaddickted (talk) 15:53, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

@Chocoaddickted: I'm fully aware of where that article came from and who provided it to that site in the first place so I was quite surprised to see it here. No need to thank me but the sentiment is appreciated. Have a nice day! - Carlobunnie (talk) 16:08, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

controversy section

I saw that you had originally taken out the section so I thought I would come to you. I was looking at the BTS talk page and there are a few people who seem quite adamant that the controversy section and what is written should be included. While I understand the desire for neutrality, I'm concerned as I know that the source which the Simon Wissenthal Center made their statement based off of is unreliable. Those who think the section should be included said it was because the issue is being reported by reliable sources, but the problem is that those sources are reporting based off of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, who made their statement based off the words of a pretty alarming source. Is there anything you could do to convince those who want the section to at least wait until the issue with the center has been cleared up? I know many people have contacted the center to try to inform them about the situation. 128.230.137.235 (talk) 03:11, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that Tamar Herman,(@TamarWrites on twitter) who is an experienced writer and is jewish herself has voiced her concerns about the Simon Wissenthal Center's statement. This isn't much, but would the fact that actual journalists are concerned about what is being written in these sources help support the argument against including the controversy section as it is, or at least delaying its inclusion until the matter has been cleared? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.230.137.235 (talk) 03:32, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi, yes I saw Tamar's comments under the SWC post and while I don't know how much weight journalists' concerns would carry on here, the whole thing in general is really a cause for concern. Reminds me of the BP DDD yt record issue a few months ago when Forbes published an article (based on an unreliable source) and ppl were in an uproar over subsequent the edits being removed, insisting it was acceptable because Forbes wrote about it, conveniently ignoring the fact that the reliable outlet's source wasn't reliable at all. The premise is the same lol. I did offer my two cents in response to one of the seemingly more civil editors who weighed in on the matter, and suggested we wait until more unbiased information is made available and SWC publishes their updated statement. Hopefully this will all be resolved calmly then. I don't object however, to a controversy section being published because the situation is what it is and, with the amount of attn it's received, warrants being mentioned in the wiki article. I just believe it's wiser to wait a bit first, but we'll see how things go I guess. - Carlobunnie (talk) 23:47, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Carlobunnie. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Boy with Luv, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pop (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 17:27, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

RE: your recent edit on I Need U

Hello Carlobunnie, thank you for contacting me. I checked BTS albums discography chronology and found the 5th August 2017 revision when the BB PH chart peak was added to I Need U: it was #79. Two days later, an IP changed it to #77, and in fact they were right, but put the wrong source link, XD. I've also found the archived chart to support its peak at #19. The following week it fell behind at #56, so I don't think it charted higher. I'll update it at once. Bye. --Chiya⁹² 07:10, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Uploading single covers

Thanks for uploading the regular edition cover of "Lights"/"Boy with Luv", but it's been replaced with a PNG, which is the preferred file format for album and single covers. I've also switched the use of the regular edition cover to "Lights" (as that is the song that is listed first in the double A-side listing), and the cover that was on Lights (BTS song) to Boy with Luv so we don't have two covers on one article. In future, you should convert JPGs to PNGs before uploading (which can be done using most image editing programs, including Microsoft Paint), or there are websites that can do it for you. Ss112 04:43, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 5

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of awards and nominations received by Exo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mnet (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Draft

I've redirected draft + draft talk to the main space, I hope everything is okay, I included your most recet edits like image swap at the main article now. The most recent talk is now available at Talk:List of awards and nominations received by BTS#Rework of Lede so edit only at main space now, no point of having two different updating articles. Snowflake91 (talk) 08:58, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

@Snowflake91: Is there any particular reason why none of the talk section from the draft prior to the lede rework section didn't transfer across? -- Carlobunnie (talk) 14:42, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Is it needed? Everything was resolved there so I included only those last two sections since the page was huge, but I can re-add everything if you want, though the current content at BTS talk would need to be archived then. Snowflake91 (talk) 15:46, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

@Snowflake91: yes please re-add it. I think the history is good for anyone who may come later on asking about anything we covered in those sections (and that's honestly what I thought you were gonna do when you did the initial move). Archive everything prior to the 'possible page revamp' section that I started off this whole thing with. That way all discussion related to the revamp is easily available, at least until after FL review is completed. Then we can archive any additional talk sections. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 15:55, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Done Snowflake91 (talk) 16:09, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Bring The Soul Movie page

Hi. Thanks for contacting on the talk page of "List of awards and nominations- BTS". Saw that you updated the attendance figures for Bring the soul movie page. Just wanted to show you that recently Forbes, Billboard (among a few other reliable sources) released the updated figures for the Box-Office figures worldwide for the movie Bring The Soul. Just check if these figures could be added and updated in the main page. https://www.forbes.com/sites/caitlinkelley/2019/08/28/btss-bring-the-soul-film-broke-records-after-grossing-243-million/ https://www.billboard.com/articles/news/bts/8528616/bts-bring-the-soul-the-movie-attendance-numbers --Chimmy87 (talk) 03:05, 29 August 2019 (UTC)Chimmy87

@Chimmy87: the update you made (and then undid) was fine because the information and sources are good. I really only was referring to edits you would want to make on the list of awards/noms article. You can go ahead and update whatever other figures/info on the movie page that the sources support. If anything is amiss someone will tweak your edit accordingly :) -- Carlobunnie (talk) 03:31, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

@Carlobunnie: Okay. Thanks. I am updating the figures then. :) Also, was there any specific reason to revamp the list of awards and nominations by BTS page to a new format and leave out the awards of lesser media coverage? Just asking. Chimmy87 (talk) 04:55, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

@Chimmy87: the answers to both your questions can be found here. I was on the page one day in June and it occurred to me that it wasn't very easy to read with all the little tables for each award that weren't even alphabetically arranged and one had to constantly scroll up and down to find something in particular, so I checked out the list pages of some other famous musicians, came across a few that were all in one and went to the talk page to ask about redoing it. Other editors agreed with me and it was brought to my attention that the new wikipedia standard for lists (especially featured lists or articles hoping to make featured list status) was the all in one table. Roughly one month later here we are. The awards that didn't make it into the new table didn't meet wikipedia's notability requirements as the earliest discussion shows (and some later down as well). Wikipedia lists are not meant to record every single award won, nomination received, or poll topped (that's what fan run blogs & sites are for). While it might be nice to see lots of awards written out for any artist not all of them are encyclopedic/worth mentioning. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 12:19, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

@Carlobunnie: That's good. The previous layout is mostly followed for all other K-pop groups even though it's clumsy. Could those pages use a revamp as well?- just to make everything concise and easy to read.I have noticed that the page for the list of awards and nominations for Twice contains citations of Soompi, Twitter and YouTube links among others. A few awards don't have citations at all. Any thoughts? --CY 15:20, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

@Chimmy87: another editor, Facts Spiller actually asked me the same thing and this was my reply. If you have the time you can start searching for reliable/replacement sources as per WP:KO/RS and hopefully other editors who maintain the Twice page will be interested in helping you improve its current condition. Sadly way too many k-pop related pages on wikipedia are poorly or unreliably sourced so it'll take a LOT of work to bring them up to scratch. I'd start fixing some myself but right now my focus is on the BTS page first. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 15:55, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 1

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited BTS (band), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vanity Fair (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:46, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

BTS' SPS Units

Hello! I hope you are doing great!

Yesterday, Billboard released this article [1] which gave the equivalent album units for Love yourself: Tear and Love Yourself: Answer:

"As of Sept. 19, 2019, Love Yourself: Tear has earned 639,000 equivalent album units in the U.S. while Love Yourself: Answer has earned 1.07 million equivalent album units, according to Nielsen Music".

In BTS' pages, generally either RIAA certifications or pure sales are added. Can you suggest where this data can be added?

Facts Spiller (talk) 08:55, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

BTS page

Hi. I noticed that the very recent edit, made by someone, removed some info from the lede like "Princes of Pop" that was given by Time. I don't know why it was removed since Exo's main page lede contains facts like "Kings of K-pop" and "biggest boy-band in the world", so why shouldn't BTS's page have facts like these? I think the lede prior to this edit was much better and comprehensive. I have noticed that you maintain the BTS main page. Would you mind reverting it? Thanks --Greninja7 (talk) 05:07, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

@Greninja7: iirc that particular information was removed because their inclusion was not properly supported by the citations used to justify having them on the page. The exo article has good sources so it's allowed there. I'd have to check back the BTS page history to say for sure. But if it really is as I remember then the only way that sort of thing could be included again is if the sources used to back up the names are reliable enough and they clearly state BTS being called such. I'm not in a position to check at the moment though. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 02:39, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi. The 2019 section under the Career section hasn't been updated yet, like the US year-end lists have been published and BTS ended as the top-grossing touring artists. Five of their albums are on the top ten world year-end chart. Can these edits be made? Thanks. --Greninja7 (talk) 05:32, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)