User talk:Agartthaagarttha

Welcome!
Hi Agartthaagarttha! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Bonnielou2013 (talk) 22:03, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Your first edits
Hi Agartthaagarttha, about your edits on the page Burning Sun scandal, starting here: which appear to be your personal views on Seungri's situation related to the allegations, without proper reliable sources to back up the changes you have made. I am going to assume good faith WP:GF and welcome you and hope that you will discuss any further such changes here with me or on my Talk page, or on the Talk page of the article here, Talk:Burning Sun scandal. Edits need to be made with a neutral point of view WP:NPOV, with reliable sources Reliable sources and your explanation in the Edit Summary Help:Edit summary. I understand that you are probably a fan of Seungri, but we must follow Wikipedia's rules. If you have questions, you may ask them here or at the Wikipedia Teahouse linked in the Welcome above, and myself or other editors will answer you.--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 22:25, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I do not think it is that I am a fan of Seungri so much as you seem to be severely biased against him. Why else would the two pages you have created on the matter --on Burning Sun and Jung Joon-Young's molka case-- both have more text dedicated to Seungri than to the purported subject of the pages? In any case, if you go over the edits you will see that my edits were neither my personal opinion, nor unreferenced. Rather, much of what is in the article at present is both unreferenced and seems to be your personal opinion. I provided links to recent new stories and official police statements that corroborate my points, while the current version, although appearing to be well-referenced, only provides citations that refer to news articles from early 2019, when much of what we know now about the matter was unknown, and multiple citations for the same point, and none for other, more controversial statements--which seem to be your personal opinion. For example, it seems to me particularly strange and suspicious that you removed Cheonwon Industry from the list of participants of this scandal when they own the site in which the Burning Sun was located and are the majority owners of the club, in which capacity their representative has recently made a court appearance in the trial related to embezzlement of Burning Sun funds. |url=https://n.news.naver.com/entertain/article/108/0002878851 I would offer you English language sources, which you seem to favour, but alas the English media stopped covering the story last year once the sensationalism had worn off. The most current news on this current event, therefore, is in the local Korean press. Also, you have failed to engage with legitimate concerns about your neutrality and suggestions to improve the page from numerous people in the talk page. You have, it appears, chosen to get ALL these voices blocked.

Earlier, I had assumed you were acting in good faith and so tried to engage constructively with you in the talk page of the article. Now, I cannot assume either your good faith or your neutrality on the matter.

Agartthaagarttha (talk) 12:04, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

This policy seems to apply only to canvassing for consensus. I have not said anywhere that there was any attempt whatsoever to create a consensus off site about this article or a response to it. A number of people saw it and seemingly found it problematic independently, and engaged directly, only on the basis of the points made, in the talk page of the article.

When a degree of common criticism attaches to a page you can either believe one party and suppress alternative voices by labelling all criticism as meat puppetry, or you can consider the more probable cause: they are all criticising the same thing because the same thing is wrong from the independent perspective of multiple people, without them having to confer with each other.

Please look at the talk page of Burning Sun. The concern are legitimate and referenced. By not addressing them and suppressing all voices that want to offer a corrective, you are helping to perpetuate the lack of neutrality that attaches to the page in question.