Ukiss2ne14lyfe

Hello. I am the creator of various Wikipedia articles related to U-KISS. We can be partners. Is it okay with you? jmarkfrancia (talk) 02:55, 12 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

I've been searching for wikipedia editors that can help me for UKISS-related articles for over a year now. Glad i came accross ur profile! I'll try to find other sources for Stop Girl to help. jmarkfrancia (talk) 13:32, 12 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hey Ukiss2ne14lyfe,

Per WP:RS, forums are not reliable sources and should not be used on Wikipedia. In general, K-pop articles on Wikipedia need more reliable sources so that's what I'm working on right now. It looks like you and another editor disagree on which members are in the second/third/fourth generation. If no one provides a source for that in the near future, I'm going to remove the different colors/generations from the timeline. --Random86 (talk) 00:07, 28 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Suga (entertainer) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suga (entertainer) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Drmies (talk) 05:26, 11 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi Ukiss2ne14lyfe. I'm in the process of removing famousbirthdays.com as a source from Wikipedia, because it's not reliable (See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_153#Is_famousbirthdays.com_a_reliable_source_for_personal_information). I noticed that you've added it, and wanted to make sure you understood why it's being removed. If you disagree, let's discuss it. Thanks. --Ronz (talk) 17:08, 11 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

User:Seokjinismworshiper4nana is not a registered username. Please ask for renaming at WP:CHU/SIMPLE. Thanks. Dr. K. 03:44, 16 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

This is not the correct form of disambiguating song articles on Wikipedia. DNA (BTS song) is the correct place for this article to be. Singles are songs first and foremost, and we don't capitalise the s. Ss112 06:57, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Can't really put it as DNA (song) when someone has connected it to the Love Yourself:Her so....

Are you meaning to say you don't know how to edit a redirect? Click on the blue link where it says "Redirected from DNA (BTS song)" at the top of the article. Then you get to here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=DNA_(BTS_song)&redirect=no Ss112 07:01, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I thought a mod or something could only do things like that or change titles.

It's your material, as you wrote it. You can move it by copying it wherever you like. Ss112 07:14, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

You've moved the page, but again, the s in "song" is still capitalised. Hence why I linked you to the correct page above. Ss112 07:22, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Please adapt the date format in references for the page you're editing. If the page uses mdy date format (December 11, 2017), use that. If the page uses dmy date format (date first, 11 December 2017), use that. The BTS pages you've been editing of late use mdy, so please format your dates with the month first. Thank you. Ss112 07:24, 11 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Can you give me an example of when I did that because I genuinely have no clue what you're talking about. Ukiss2ne14lyfe (talk) 00:21, 12 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I noticed that you’ve added J-Hope’s production credits to his article, however you haven’t cited a reliable source for any of it. When you have a moment, could you please provide sources for these credits? Thanks, Alexanderlee (talk) 17:21, 9 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

All of them are cited on Wikipedia already if you click the album and their links. Ukiss2ne14lyfe (talk) 17:53, 9 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Ukiss2ne14lyfe: On the album articles they’re sourced, yes, however on J-Hope’s article they are unsourced. If someone was to look at the article all they would see is unsourced claims of credit, you can’t just expect people to go to another article for verification. Alexanderlee (talk) 18:16, 9 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

A link to another article has always been accepted. Mods have told me it is acceptable before. They only said unreliable and unsourced does not work. There are many articles on Wikipedia that make pages that way. The only problems I can see is 1 Verse and Hope World. Both already have sources on this page but I can connect them there as well. Ukiss2ne14lyfe (talk) 18:35, 9 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Ukiss2ne14lyfe: In that case I apologise. I'd never noticed or heard of that before, thank you for informing me of this. :) Alexanderlee (talk) 18:56, 9 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

I was told that a few years ago so maybe they started changing the policy? Not sure, this is the first time someone brought this up with me since then. Ukiss2ne14lyfe (talk) 19:23, 9 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi Ukiss2ne14lyfe!

I just wanted to let you know that the name of the magazine is "Billboard", not "Billboards", and since it's the name of a magazine, you would italize it like Billboard. Thank you so much for making the LY era solo pages! DanielleTH ^{(Say hi!)} 00:34, 9 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Sorry! It's a habit! I've always called it that until I realized recently it was without an 's' at the end.Ukiss2ne14lyfe (talk) 01:20, 9 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Please note this refers to the first known year of song, not subsequent years, as per cat says, "Songs written, or first published, recorded, released or performed in XXXX." Thanks. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:37, 30 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Ahh, I thought it would be the version that was made for wiki. Ukiss2ne14lyfe (talk) 14:40, 30 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I’ve noticed that you've recently been adding citation tags to many articles, and this is great. However, I’ve also noticed that many things you’re tagging for citation are already cited in the article; you can either use ref name to repeated the cite or just leave it, but it doesn’t need to be tagged when it’s already sourced. Alexanderlee (talk) 23:03, 14 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

(talk page stalker) Alexanderlee: I agree. The user also seems to be tag bombing the articles, which is actually a form of disruptive edit, rather than being a responsible editor by helping to find reliable sources for the article. The user also added the citation tags where it is unnecessary, for example the literal translation of foreign words. Heolkpop (talk) 06:08, 15 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Heolkpop This seems to only be a problem in the kpop community. Readers shouldn't have to figure out if it's been tagged somewhere else, or know it's a translation error that's making the meaning change. There should be the reference backing the information at the end. Even if it's been sourced earlier in the article it should be tagged again so regardless it needs a cite. If you as an editor know it's sourced somewhere else you should be placing the cite where it's blank too. No one is going to study a Wikipedia page and try and figure out if it's been sourced elsewhere. The whole point of wiki is to be able to follow links to good articles and it seems the kpop articles in general are failing at this. Ukiss2ne14lyfe (talk) 13:24, 15 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Also, there is no rule that states if someone tags a cite they must find one themselves for it too. Tagging a cite is merely communicating to the community that something is lacking here and it needs fixing. It's not disruptive if it's the truth and it needs a cite.Ukiss2ne14lyfe (talk) 13:28, 15 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Ukiss2ne14lyfe: First of all, see WP:TAGBOMB. If you are going to spam the citation tag {{cn}} millions of times, the refimprove template {{refimprove}} should be used instead. Thereafter, give a heads up on the reasons why you added the tag on the article's talk page by pointing out which section needs improvements. Secondly, take a look at Taylor Swift, which is a featured article. Not a single citation is in the lead paragraph as it is supposed to be a summary of the whole article. Even so, citations are only added where necessary and not onto every sentence in the lead. Thirdly, based on what you are saying, so you knew that some citations have already been given somewhere in the article, yet you did not search for it and use refname to repeat the citation, as per Alexanderlee's comment. That shows lazy and irresponsible editing. Lastly, you do not have to give citations for every single sentence in the article. See WP:BLUESKY. I will not be commenting here if you at least take the initiative to do what Alexanderlee stated but all you did is to add the {{cn}} tags, not on one but on many articles. Heolkpop (talk) 15:17, 15 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Heolkpop No quotes are in the Taylor Swift front paragraph because the beginning paragraph is known to be a summarizing piece. The rest of the article is meant to expand and show sources, which is clearly not happening with the articles I tagged. If you have a problem with tagging things that need to be tagged then you have a bias. Leaving all those known unreliable sources is irresponsible too. It's better to make it clear to everyone where the problems are instead of having people guess. Readers will not know what is properly backed up with facts. Some editors still do not know what are good sources, let alone readers. Those pages don't matter to me anyways. I was just trying to improve kpop articles in general so I have zero bias towards them, which is what those pages needed. You can do what you want with the pages. I'm just going to stick to the articles I normally edit and eventually an admim out of the kpop community will notice and start deleting articles. The only reason a lot of them haven't been deleted already is because a lack of page views and edits. If half of those problems going on in those articles were in a popular visited page they would have already been deleted.Ukiss2ne14lyfe (talk) 15:59, 15 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Ukiss2ne14lyfe: In what way am I biased? I am commenting about this issue in general. Some of your sources in the articles you frequently edit in are unreliable yet you still added them anyway. There are also unreliable sources in those articles, such as the use of Youtube as source. Furthermore, you have already been advised on Jeon So-mi page, in which your edits have been reverted due to WP:OVERTAG and other reasons like reliable sources have been added but you still added the {{cn}} tag. How about taking an effort to check through? And what makes you think that only admins can delete the Wiki pages? Experienced editors can delete them too, and there are many of them patrolling around K-pop related pages, especially those with low page views. Well, you said you want to improve those pages so why don't you help by adding reliable sources for all those tags that you have added? You should practise what you preach unless you are not a person of your word. Heolkpop (talk) 16:43, 15 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Heolkpop They were unreliable until recently when someone showed me the page of reliable and unreliable sources, which I also noted above stating many editors aren't aware of what's reliable. Youtube is able to be used on official accounts, as I noted in my own edit to you, as long as it is uploaded on an official account which was the case. Other people can delete articles but unless you're an admin it can start an editing war, so most regular wiki editors don't do that. Not much of a point when stans just go back and reinstate it.Ukiss2ne14lyfe (talk) 16:57, 15 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hey Manikas-whims (talk) 16:05, 21 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Ummm can we talk? Manikas-whims (talk) 16:06, 21 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Do you have an email or other sns so we can contact you?