User talk:Bullpup11

Your recent edit warring on AKB48

Hi there, Please read carefully WP:WAR. We are asked to create content by reaching consensus not by reverting each other's edits. You are invited to find consensus with me on the article's talk page. Also try to be WP:CIVIL. I might ask if you once used the handle "OscarWilde" in this fandom? Just of curiosity. Thank you! Rka001 (talk) 19:01, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Never ran any user profile before this. At best I did some sparse edits from a simple IP. Why are you so interested, anyway? - Bullpup11 (talk) 20:44, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rena Hasegawa and Assault of Maho Yamaguchi

Thanks for your additions, but finding secondary sources to back up your statements is preferred. Also, be careful about going overly detailed as you did in Assault of Maho Yamaguchi. It is heavily recommended to keep summaries short and to the point. Thanks! lullabying (talk) 01:24, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Being the matter of the assault case something which stretched for over one year and 3 months, I find it more than necessary to add all the descriptions needed. That it happened mostly in an unofficial way (e.g.; you aren't going to find any news site reporting Maho's initial tweets in any secondary source, just watered down reports that do no justice watsoever to what the content actually was, hence why I had to resort to linking to a Twitter aggregator site), what with the way the idol industry works, it means there are some points where it is necessary to use primary sources to back it up, even if those primary sources happened to be Maho's own tweets. For the most part, I tried to stick to "news sites" as much as possible, even though those news sites happened to be things like Tokyo Sports, which lack in professionalism. I'd appreciate for the article to be kept that way, if the alternative is for it to be gouged of pivotal details. Bullpup11 (talk) 01:41, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the information is just really overly detailed. Example: On March 21, 2019 the the third-party committee concluded the research and determined that, while up to 12 members were alleged to fraternize with fans, with mentions of others admitting it voluntarily at an unspecified point after the assault, no NGT48 members were implicated in the assault itself, on account of "no indications of conspiracy", and that it was caused by "excessive behavior from some fans"[24], with what is described as the "peculiarities of Niigata" (small urban area, underdeveloped infrastructure, limited public transportation) making it easier for members to be tracked down, before recommending to strengthen the security at the private accommodations and handshake events, and to improve the members' transfer between theater and home. A copy of the research report was also published on NGT48's official website. You don't need to say things like the research report was published on the website, etc. The main purpose of Wikipedia is to provide a summary, not to regurgitate all the details from the reports and detail every single event in the case. See WP:NOTNEWS. lullabying (talk) 03:07, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what's superfluous about describing the document's content. The content of the research report was an essential and important part (not to menton costly, itself having taken 40 million yen to make, as it was reported officially in the lawsuit complaint) of the investigation process (in fact, it was the ONLY part to be ever made public). Since the very paragraph starts by saying that AKS had set up an independent committe to look into it, it is essential for it to end with a brief (out of 30+ pages of document) description of what the findings were, since it ties in with the press conference that followed and Yamaguchi's own reaction during it. Doing otherwise means keeping the reader unaware and skipping over an important point, for which there's no handy English link. Since this article is a standalone entry and not an appendix of a bigger one, why even keeping such details out? Bullpup11 (talk) 10:19, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the crucial information in and not extra details like "this was also posted on their website." See WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EXCESSDETAIL. lullabying (talk) 18:49, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I have seen the edits and while there's something that could have been left in, I have no problem with the current balance. Bullpup11 (talk) 19:40, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources

Thanks for your edits on Rena Hasegawa; however, you need to begin including secondary sources instead of using primary sources. lullabying (talk) 02:11, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. If you are speaking about the dubbing work, the fact of the matter is that the sources to go around at the moment are exclusively official press releases straight from Crocodile, in that no third-party articles were written specifically about that (which, in any case, would just be repeats of official news releases distributed by the agency anyway). Once again, I don't see any reason to exclude them, if the other option is to leave the information completely unsourced as in way too many other entertainers pages. Bullpup11 (talk) 21:33, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If they're only sourced by primary sources, then they would be at risk of removal because they would not be considered notable roles due to not passing WP:GNG. lullabying (talk) 18:01, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring notice

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Assault of Maho Yamaguchi. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. lullabying (talk) 21:44, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the edits that have been done, and while I don't mind per se that certain parts are kept condensed so as to make the article easier to "metabolize" for the casual reader, I have also provided arguments for all my reversal and restorations, even citing the exact part of the statements inside of the articles from which I'm drawing the statements. The problem, to me, is when too many details are removed to make the whole article moot for a casual reader who comes to the article in order to learn about something which they probably only heard of only by name. A separate dicussion may be made on how this compares to articles on other cases/controversies, but I don't want to get too much into arguments. I sincerely don't want to get into tiring arguments or "wars" with any other editors on this site, but seeing as how an article on the subject was created, I am only trying to put all the knowledge I have on the matter to use, seeing as how most of that is unknown to a non-Japanese public (as it can be told by the many holes left behind by English language reports), and how I had personally been following the matter very closesly to have confidence in contributing to the article's content.

I would like to know what publications fall within the category of a "gossip tabloid" and for what reason they can be dismissed as so, seeing how this denomination alone was used to justify deleting informations on that simple basis. To me, this is a case-by-case question that must be considered based on the content of each report, rather than what "reputation" one is wishing to attach to the publications.

If it's straight-up quotes coming from public interviews where multiple reporters were present as witnesses, I don't see a reason for why they should be removed.

What I would like to avoid is stories being told privately by unknown sources as inside leak, which are typical of publications like Shuukan Bunshun, or even worse by the even less credible Shuukan Jitsuwa.

The only primary sources I found myself using were Yamaguchi's own tweets, and as much as this is an unavoidable choice, as I said before I already made sure to reinforce them with reports from contemporary news pieces despite this being a simple redundant operation in that they limit themselves to just copy and paste what's being tweeted.

I hope I have made myself clear. Bullpup11 (talk) 22:14, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the points I have made at Talk:Assault of Maho Yamaguchi#Edit war. One example I have pointed out is your elaboration of primary sources and how a shortened summary I did was considered "watering down" and detracting from the "point of the article" when Wikipedia is not a news article and doesn't need a detailed report -- not to mention the article is supposed to be written from a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Furthermore, WP:PRIMARY states Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. I understand finding independent sources may be difficult but you cannot base large sections of the article on primary sources especially since those can be biased and non-verifiable -- see WP:NEUTRALSOURCE. As stated, feel free to draft an article on what you think the article should look like in the Sandbox, but your reliance on primary sources and elaboration on certain details is affecting the article's neutral point of view. lullabying (talk) 23:17, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:44, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

August 2023

Hello, I'm AirshipJungleman29. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Rinkai!, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:58, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]