Talk:Park Yoo-chun

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:U-Know which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 21:45, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Origin Virginia?
I notice Yoochun's "origin" is listed as Fairfax, Virginia, in the infobox. From what I can gather by poking around Wikipedia, origin is supposed to mean where a person's career started, if it's different than their birthplace. (I found this on a page related to Chinese entertainers.) This isn't cut and dry, but I'm not sure Virginia is the best item here. He lived there only four years and he signed up with a talent agency there (as noted in the article), but his actual career clearly began with TVXQ in Korea. Is there evidence of actual entertainment-related activities (jobs) he did in Virginia that could constitute a "career"? Any opinions? ^_^ 219.250.218.169 (talk) 13:21, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

About the section " Sexual Assault allegations:
As we know that Wikipedia is not a template for news collections, all the contents listed on Wikipedia should be confirmed by official sources not just relied on the media like TV news, newspapers, and any internet sources. Please help to remove the section" Sexual Assault allegations" under Park Yoo-chun. Otherwise, it will be a huge damage on the article subject Mr. Park Yoo-chun. Thanks a lot for administrators' attention on this request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leeyinggao (talk • contribs) 04:03, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually Wikipedia relies on reliable secondary sources, of which newspapers and internet sources can be. Primary sources, such as press releases from official companies, cannot be the only source of information. Suggest you read WP:PRIMARY for any discussion of sourcing information. If you have concerns of specific sources and content added, you might take it up to WP:KO. Also in terms of his reputation, negative content is allowed if it is published in reliable sources, see WP:PUBLICFIGURE Evaders99 (talk) 04:28, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

2021 - some things have changed and your edit is finally done. Leeinggao. There is also now more specifics on what those secondary sources are. Some changes will be made to uncited info soon and articles used will be looked into to ensure that they are viable. 20footfish (talk) 12:45, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Please modify the title of the section "Sexual assault allegations" to "Controversial allegation"
Thanks for the reply on my previous request for removing the section of "Sexual assault allegations". We will follow all the terms of conditions of Wikipedia. To be more neutral and objective, We would like to suggest that the title of the section "Sexual assault allegations" could be modified to "Controversial allegation". Thanks a lot for administrators' attention on this request. Have a good day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.227.40.43 (talk) 15:02, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Happy to report that this is now done in 2021 but other things will be looked at to ensure that Wikipedia article is neutral and that information on site is viable. Sources will be looked into soon.20footfish (talk) 12:47, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Controversy on the section "sexual assault allegation" under the page of "Park Yoochun"
Hereby I would like to communicate with all for the following two points regarding the article "Park Yoochun":

1) Since the allegation are still under investigation by South Korea police up to date and we are all waiting for the truth which will be announced by Police. Therefore, it seems to be a kind of sneer rather than a firmed introduction to put the following "quoted" description right in the first section the introduction of Park Yoochun. I would like to suggest that the following description under the first section introducing Park Yoochun can be removed.

quoted

In 2016, while in the middle of his two-year mandatory military service, Park became the subject of a string of sexual assault charges earning him the nickname "Korea's Bill Cosby".[1]

unquoted

2) Following point (1) mentioned above, according to the public information on the news we can read up to date, all the allegations has still been under investigated by the South Korean Police. From the basic human rights perspective, I would like to suggest that the title of the section "sexual assault allegations" under Park Yoochun can be changed to "Controversy - sexual assault allegation " instead of "sexual assault allegation". Regarding the detailed description under the section since they are all from news whether TV or newspaper or internet, people can read the news sources clearly.

Thanks a lot for everyone's attention on my suggestions listed above and looking forward to get the consensus on my suggestion and see the modification soon. Hope this kind of discussion can make Wikipedia continuing being a free and good platform for truth and knowledge sharing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leeyinggao (talk • contribs) 13:01, 3 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Done== Please edit the title of the section "Sexual assault allegations" ==

This is a bio of a living person. So any change could make some effection to his life immediately. And this case cruined his name and his 13 years career.

Although this is a on-going case but media reported the case with all one side statement from accusers. And now police proved those statements are lies through the investigation. When the police's investigate was on - going, there were a lot of "official statement" which was denied 1,2 hours later. So, I think, before the end of this case, we couldn't give any information about this. Because there are too many unconfirmation rumor and maybe they can't be proved either.

Although Park Yoochun is proved that he is innocent but there are many rumor from media with many negative report. And the soures are used for this article is untrufull sources such as soompi. Soompi is ussually has mistake in their translation when they report Park Yoochun's case. Now Park Yoochun is called the victim of media's witch - hunter.

If you think this part could not be deleted, intead of ""Sexual assault allegations", "Controversial allegation" may be a better title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by This is a funny name (talk • contribs) 02:45, 12 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Done. Karst (talk) 14:08, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Done. Again and reviewed 20footfish (talk) 12:49, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

"FORMER" Singer-Actor
Mr. Park Yoochun isn't a "former" actor or singer. He is a singer and actor and despite his previous agency announcing a retirement this didn't took place since curretly Mr. Park has signed with a new agency and is fulfilling activities as singer. So please stop editing to write former.

https://thelimethailand.com/index_pyc.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.237.186.77 (talk) 20:19, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

General request based on overview - edit sexual assault allegations content grammar misleading
Grammar and spelling. Noticed general tone of the article was discriminatory compared to other celebrity pages. Subheadings and headings as the setting for tone on Wikipedia were not impartial. It is uncited information and warranted immediate change so as to protect the human rights of the individual and adhere to the current Terms and Conditions of Wikipedia.- Actioned- 29 December 2020

Sexual assault allegations and lawsuits[edit] 1. grammar correction to formal English. Missing words such as in. Changed to formal speech. Done.20footfish (talk) 01:27, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Sexual Assault Allegations title request
Review and second request from Please can you change the title of Sexual Assault Allegations and lawsuits as requested by another user 2016.

Wikipedia as an impartial recorder of history for Bios is to apply equality to all living people herein. Persons to be considered as having equal rights in status and opportunity across the platform.

Revisions on pages Justin Bieber, Jay-Z, Donald Trump and numerous other celebrity pages, conclusion that language used within uncited areas was misleading and not impartial. Content is correct but Wikipedia edit has been done to reflect the same impartial tone as per other articles therein. Hereby removing any discrepancy or possible undertone that this has been treated differently from any other celebrity facing similar character profiles or legal issues. Noted that allegations and use of words such as Sexual Assault for subheadings remain only on celebrities that have been charged for the crime. It is not the case here.

Sexual Assault Allegations has been removed and replaced with "Legal issues and controversies" so as to remove the impression of Wikipedia being discriminant toward this entertainer as charges were dropped. Content has been cited and reviewed. 20footfish (talk) 02:08, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

New Subtitle
Other Lawsuits has been included to tidy up information. Content has been unchanged.20footfish (talk) 02:09, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Drug use and retirement
Heading has been changed to Drug use and to  Drug use and related charges. This is to be in line with current information as the celebrity has not retired. Retirement was subject to review as it was sitting within Lawsuits and scandals and it is not believed to have been a legal debate. Subjective on the scandals but not necessary as the information is recorded within his career info and at the top of the page. It was repetitive and has been removed. Further possible edits in the 2020 - Return to the entertainment industry area as some sentences are repeated. Not urgent for now. Thank you most kindly and have a great day.

--done--20footfish (talk) 01:45, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Humanitarian efforts source to be completed 2021
Voluntary Relief Aid Thailand. or Humanitarian work in Thailand. facts can be added.20footfish (talk) 15:53, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Personal Life - ammended as per wikipedia guidlines
Public figures

Policy listed below, only citations for detail disputed as irrelevant to information on Wikipedia and removed from personal life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 20footfish (talk • contribs) 03:58, 31 December 2020 (UTC) Policy shortcuts

WP:PUBLICFIGURE

See also: Wikipedia:Who is a low-profile individual

In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.

Example: "John Doe had a messy divorce from Jane Doe." Is the divorce important to the article, and was it published by third-party reliable sources? If not, leave it out. If so, avoid use of "messy" and stick to the facts: "John Doe and Jane Doe divorced." Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. It is denied, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should state only that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that the affair actually occurred. If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should also be reported.

--- done Therefore, abbreviated the contents as per the conditions above.20footfish (talk) 03:50, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Uncited information removal
Over the next few days, I will go through all uncited claims and try to back them up. If sources are not found and not viable according to policy, the information will be removed. This is standard for Wikipedia. Attempted to contact the user to engage and find out the possible source, no reply in 3 days. Thanks20footfish (talk) 07:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Legal Issues and Controversies - Big Edit and removal
After 18 hours of navigating through referenced articles, sourcing alternative opinions from various media outlets and article. After long chats with other wiki editors privately. Checked through the privacy policy and the viable sources policy. It was determined that the sources were not viable enough to warrant content being 100% factual enough to sit within and encyclopedia platform. None of the previous articles for any of the legal disputes had quotes from legal council. None were referring to legal documents or official interviews. None of the information could be backed up by the writers themselves and therefore the information has been removed. There were many articles about the scandals and controversies but because the information differs and Soompi can't agree with Allkpop, Naver contradicts itself, or South Korean media can't provide details about damages that were charged - it is considered as non-viable and defamation without evidence. Wikipedia as an impartial source of information doesn't require detail like newspapers do. The purpose is different and rather than report the news, we record the facts in history. If it's not 100% fact, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Any new editors for legal issues need to make sure they source at least 2 articles that say exactly the same thing, they need to be international sources that are listed on

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources

E Online was the only one that had current information, impartiality and is listed as viable for Wikipedia platform when writing about celebrities. 20footfish (talk) 02:12, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Update on second varified source https://www.8days.sg/sceneandheard/entertainment/k-pop-star-park-yoochun-cleared-of-rape-charges-but-can-t-find-8195650

is viable. Mediacorp ltd is a neutral party reporting. It is written in English originally and translation can't be disputable. The article cited is written in 2017. This article was written after the 2016 accusations and once court cases had been closed of finalised, it replaces sources that were written before the court had made a ruling.

SBS popasia is a radio reporting media agent. It has a blog that is well resourced but it is not viable because Wikipedia doesn't allow blogs to be used as references. This site is a good example showing the difference in opinion between the many newsagents and media establishment in SK at the time. Locations and details around the accusation differ greatly, the accusations were proven false in the end or dismissed due to lack of evidence, there for the information is no longer important to Wikipedia. Here is the blog citing all the newsagents who can't seem to agree on detail.

https://www.sbs.com.au/popasia/blog/2016/06/14/jyjs-yoochun-acquitted-sexual-assault-charges

20footfish (talk) 05:03, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Warning Next edit - Drug use and related charges
I like to provide an opportunity for open debate prior to editing. FYI a number of sources have been found to be unviable. Slight issue with NewsMaker - Korean Herald, News later updated. The story had changed after the release of this article. I will confirm in 5 days but the viability of these articles is now being checked against contradicting information from other news outlets. It may be removed.

Information about Burning Sun Scandal and Hwang Hana irrelevant to Park YuChun. Belongs in a newspaper and not in the encyclopedia. If really required, then a new page must be created for Hwang Ha Na, a link can be made. As an editor, I will not make her page but anyone wanting this news on Wiki is welcome do this. It is not information that should be here on Park YooChun's page and will be removed - it falls into category of Wikipedia needing to remain impartial and having this information is misleading and detrimental - it needs to go. There is a policy to support this and I will include a reference in my edit20footfish (talk) 21:43, 19 January 2021 (UTC)


 * done earlier than I expected ***20footfish (talk) 01:57, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Policy linking here is Catagory: Living people

"Purpose: Because living persons may suffer personal harm from inappropriate information, we should watch their articles carefully. This category exists to help Wikipedia editors improve the quality of biographies of living persons by ensuring that the articles maintain a neutral point of view, maintain factual accuracy, and are properly sourced. Recent changes to these articles are listed on Special:RecentChangesLinked/Category:Living people."20footfish (talk) 11:42, 28 January 2021 (UTC) 20footfish (talk) 21:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

2021 and the Changes with Internet "voice" - changes to how information is delivered. - key change reason for whole site.
Just a historic note to point to Giants like Google, Apple, Amazon, Twitter, Facebook and many others. In December 2021 the internet provider services and the social network sites identified that allowing the freedom of speech to encourage violence and extremism was a big mistake and policies with laws may be changed for 2021. The changes are coming.

What this does for Wikipedia is also highlight the fact that especially with "living" people, we need to be selective on our content and more focussed on implementing policy. I have noticed that this page has had many sources that are no longer current news, no longer the only news and details within articles differ. It is not to say that things didn't happen. It is to say that who's article do we take as the correct version of events? as there are so many, much of the info is being removed. The policies will take the foremost importance during my own editing. Leaning towards one reporter's ideas of events or leaning towards rumors, nonviable sources means that we'd be allowing Wikipedia to be an agent that is one-sided. Impartiality is the most important policy of Wikipedia, especially about biographies.20footfish (talk) 23:26, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Birthday - We are focussing on disinformation https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/01/15/wikipedia-20-year-anniversary/

Auto-vandalism bot picked up editing and conversation listed below for historical reasons recorded in chat.
Hi I am editing this page then a few more celebs.

Yes I have taken info off and have put reasons into talk pages. If this is incorrect plse tell me how you'd prefer reasons there. They ar valid reasons and fall into Wikipedia policy. I am removing non-viable sources of information as per the Wikipedia Sources page and also have found articles that dispute or have different point of view. It is my take om impartiality that Wikipedia do not take sides so if we source one side of the story then we are taking sides. It's better to just not have the info there. This changed and when new information comes out in invalidating old according to WP:Prod, we don't need detail It is meant to be an encyclopedia and not a news article so we have to hold basic facts much like U2's page and Justin Bieber's page. I am changing this celebrity to look like these 2 celebrity pages in format and to include real news. The Impartiality policy of Wikipedia is the main reason and the valid sources which I can prove for every article now but it would take up a lot of space in history to do that. How can I get these edits to be accepted on terms of reason on wikipedia where limit of space is NB?20footfish (talk) 00:15, 20 January 2021 (UTC) Thank you :)

@User:20footfish, I removed your edit due to an unexplained content removal, the thing is I didn't see what the previous edit was, so just disregard my edit and go on with your day, sorry! Neverbuffed (talk) 00:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

briefly, edit can stay, is not vandalism :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 20footfish (talk • contribs) 01:02, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Personal Life Changes - Equality across the platform
Proud to say this section is complete. Possible further simplification of facts further down the track. This page now mirrors Justin Bieber and Bono from U2 in its format, tone and professionalism. Policies have been applied on every edit.20footfish (talk) 01:51, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Updating WikiCommons - photogallery
Requested 5 new images and licenses from fan sites and attempted contact with Mr Park. No reply but I have sent licence form from Wikicommons. I am happy to do the form for them should they make contact and give permission for images. I continue to wait for these. A number of sites like Naver have recently been updated with images but due to Wikipedia's copyright policies, we need the license paperwork for images. We will wait for someone to make contact. Anyone wanting to make contact with me, plse click edit source, start typing. I will get the message and I can then contact you regarding licenses 20footfish (talk) 10:33, 27 January 2021 (UTC) Commons granted permission to share license for the one image loaded but request an alternative source to Facebook upload. IG potential?? will check. What other official website may link to RE: Cielo Entertainment (image owner)? investigating. 20footfish (talk) 11:25, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

If licensing was misunderstood, can the same image used on the Japanese page and Russian wikipedia page be used?DYNN847 (talk) 11:57, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Legal issues Drug Charges amended
Request for information on all worldwide fans sites. Some disputed that not enough info on his legal battles has been included. Some fans want it all gone. Sadly being impartial is our priority. Factual and impartial but because we use the "living Persons" terms and conditions (top of talk page) where we focus on wellbeing and mental health also of the individual, Wikipedia is happy with removing as much content as possible ( as far as I am able to read from their policies and culture on Twitter) Wikipedia would support this based on the policies online.

I have let users know much is deleted for this reason and also for the reason that every cited article was personally reviewed by me, checked with 2 other fans who speak the native language. They were all non-viable because the info on the wiki didn't match the article or was missing from the article completely, details contradicted by another article or an open-source SNS platform like Soompi, which has dedicated comment boxes are non-viable media sources. The wiki doesn't support media that allows comments beneath their articles, as it is not impartial journalism. (See the Sources policy). All have been removed. Facts that matter and are not disputed by the media have been left on the page.20footfish (talk) 10:40, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanking other users who have helped me source the owner of image in wikicommons.

COI suspicion banner
Plse not many edits have been made. Spoken to admins along the way all edits have been backed up and it is 100% that there is no close contact or col=nflic of interest with subject.. all has been impartial editing with checking against policy. Working with Admins to remove banner and get support to complete the edit. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 20footfish (talk • contribs) 16:15, 29 January 2021 (UTC)


 * It is not a suspicion; you have stated that you edit on behalf of him and his fanclub (and as for "not many edits", you have made 80 edits to this article and 113 edits to this talk page, keeping the fans abreast with your editing activities). In addition, there are several other editors with a clear COI who have been editing this article, adding heavily promotional content. --bonadea contributions talk 16:35, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

No I have not said that I edit on behalf of anyone. I have not used those words at all. I have made 80 edits yes and written in talk for all of them and I have also contacted many times in teahouse and people looked plus told me it was okay to keep editing. Gerard didn't tell me that I can't edit. I have explained to you the need to reach out because of Wikicommons images and yes I was asked to look into changing his name. I was following the process but was not being worthy of COI. I don't know the man, never met him, never spoken to him, got details and contacted by people helping to get image license for copyright20footfish (talk) 17:03, 29 January 2021 (UTC)


 * yes I was asked to look into changing his name. That constitutes "editing on someone's behalf". Look, having a COI is not the same thing as being a vandal. It does not mean that anybody has accused you of being an abusive editor. The template simply signals that the article has been edited by people who have a conflict of interest. (Again, multiple people. Not just yourself.)  --bonadea contributions talk 17:14, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

My reason for edits are your policy to be fair it all fits with

Purpose: Because living persons may suffer personal harm from inappropriate information, we should watch their articles carefully. This category exists to help Wikipedia editors improve the quality of biographies of living persons by ensuring that the articles maintain a neutral point of view, maintain factual accuracy, and are properly sourced. Recent changes to these articles are listed on Special:RecentChangesLinked/Category:Living people.

neutral point of view, maintain factual accuracy, and are properly sourced. - this is the part I focussed on.

information was inappropriate in terms of his career and privacy. It was in papers in the past, many who have different views. It was harmful to keep it on the site. Harm can be future endeavors being affected by this information. It's not my personal opinion. I did read this in your policy. Please help and take off COI.20footfish (talk) 17:09, 29 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but having brief, well-sourced, and neutrally phrased information about a criminal conviction a couple of years ago is absolutely not in violation of WP:BLP. There is a minimum of info in the drug conviction section, and it is all supported by reliable published sources. Unless one has a conflict of interest here, "harming future endeavours" is completely irrelevant. Do not remove the information again. Thank you. --bonadea contributions talk 17:17, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

You have put back your drug conviction phrase and citation and this is now resolved. Why do you keep the Coi banner? I am now going to only communicate on my talk page and follow the dispute process to have another admin look at this for some help20footfish (talk) 17:43, 29 January 2021 (UTC) I have explained why that content was not neutral, the exact article has different wording to the word on Wikipedia. Wikipedia sentence is incorrect as per the article that it is cited by. Plse take a look. I have detailed it in my talk page.. thanks 20footfish (talk) 18:13, 29 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The drug charges and conviction is not the only issue; I haven't even looked at the sexual harassment allegations section which has also been all but obliterated which may or may not be appropriate, and there is still a lot of minor trivial detail that will probably need to be cleaned up as well.


 * As regards wording, I don't see where the paraphrasing misrepresents what the sources say. Keep in mind that we have to use different wordings, we can't repeat the source's words exactly unless we use direct quotes. I will respond here to what you say on your user talk page, here.


 * You claim that the two sentences "On April 26, 2019, Park was arrested on suspicion of purchasing and using methamphetamine. He was also suspected of attempting to destroy evidence by dyeing and shaving the hair from his body before undergoing the drug test." do not have a source. I think the misunderstanding here is that you thought each separate sentence has to have a separate source, which is not the case. These two sentences are supported by the same source that is given after the third sentence. If sentence 1 had had one source, sentence 2 a different one, and sentence 3 the same source as sentence 1, there would have had to be separate citation markers, but not when they are all sourced from the same place. (I hope that makes sense.)


 * Your second objection was to the phrasing "...announced that his contract would be terminated and he would retire from the entertainment industry". It looks like your principal issue with this is the phrase "he would retire" which was not supported by that source; it is a little odd that you'd object, though, given that it is so extremely easy to find sources for the statement. I'll develop it a little further, adding some more recent, sourced information that is relevant to this. --bonadea contributions talk 11:09, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the edit and for using a source that stated the fact. It's better with your new sourse.DYNN847 (talk) 11:55, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

COI for readers
This is just to let you know it is part of Wikipedia's process because of the changes over the last few months for multiple editors.

I have no connection to the subject, his family, or anyone with a personal relationship with him. In good faith, I checked all citations and found fault, and removed them. In the future, I will request an administrator's removal. Please note that Russia and Japan sites have omitted the information completely, I was looking and working off those models. I apologize for the misleading notice from Top Admin's on the page saying that there is a conflict of interest to anyone reading this because I do not have a connection.20footfish (talk) 18:10, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I did in good faith contact a fan site and attempted an email to his agency to get license details for a share-alike license on Wikicommons. I have not been contacted by the agent directly but only received the name of the owner of the image from a 3rd party. People are friendly, I received images and a request to look at the spelling of his name. This is not a personal connection or relationship. I was following your process.20footfish (talk) 18:19, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I have found out that this is my conflict of interest. I invested 80 edits, about 80 hours or work and am invested in my work. COI is because I had thanked people for contributing to license for image on commons. Apologies for the misunderstanding. Other editors here have now also had information removed like images and content under same reason COI as their updates were not of a neutral and impartial standing.20footfish

In future, all edits will need to be requested by new editors.20footfish (talk) 20:36, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Just for peace of mind, I have sourced the ID that is available on a public platform. This is something that has been put online and although it may not be able to be used to change his name to his legal name, it shows this COI can't be about the license being obtained from the subject or people known to him directly. All band members at the time had their docs uploaded here with real names https://www.yesasia.ru/article/259549 DYNN847 (talk) 14:03, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I have found this one too but am not sure if it can be used. This is where I got it from but I made the mistake of not being clear when communicating the information with Admin and I was a little misunderstood. However, COI is about multiple users. Here are the details for the name change request from an English media source. https://www.koreaboo.com/article/10-idols-who-look-amazingly-photogenic-in-their-passport-photos/ 20footfish (talk) 22:12, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Edit Photo
Hi Would it be possible to edit profile photo to the same one used on Russian and Japanese Wikipedia page? DYNN847 (talk) 11:53, 31 January 2021 (UTC)