User talk:Arieam

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Arieam, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Jessica Jung did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome. Alexanderlee (talk) 20:59, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

3-revert warning[edit]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:12, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Jung[edit]

In your last edit summary, you said that a secondary source would be redundant, because B&E has an established article. Whether another topic has an article or not is irrelevant, information still needs to be reliably sourced by secondary sources. What you said pretty much comes across as “go to another article and find the source there”. If it’s in Jung’s article, it needs to be sourced in Jung’s article with an inline citation, not something mentioned in an edit summary. Alexanderlee (talk) 21:21, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexanderlee: That's not what I said. I said "it should be enough to name her a fashion entrepreneur, seeing as she established a fashion brand. B&E's established wiki page linked in that paragraph should be reliable enough so we don't need a redundant secondary source." B&E's established wiki page is linked in the paragraph along with the fact that she established it, so it would be redundant to add a secondary source. That sentence isn't even sourced because it links to B&E's wiki page.

Now as for her being named a fashion designer, I think because B&E was mentioned in that paragraph, then writing fashion designer after singer and actress should be valid, just like the fact that singer and actress aren't cited but have other wiki pages linked to corroborate the fact that she was in a certain tv show or in a certain musical act. But anyway, if her establishing B&E is not enough to identify her as a fashion designer, then it should be enough to identify her as a fashion entrepreneur.

you’re not understanding what I’m saying, though. Linking to another article absolutely does not replace a source. Sources are still needed. Being a singer and actress isn’t sourced, because her singing activities and written about extensively throughout the article, and are all sourced. Her being a fashion designer isn’t mentioned, or sourced. The article mentions her establishing B&E, but that doesn’t automatically mean that she also designs, which is why it should be mentioned, and sourced that she does. Alexanderlee (talk) 22:01, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexanderlee: Ok fair enough. But it should be enough to name her as a fashion entrepreneur right?

I haven’t even said that she isn’t a fashion designer, only that it needs to be sourced. Alexanderlee (talk) 02:16, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexanderlee: Yea I get that. What i mean is it must be enough to name her a fashion entrepreneur, having a statement in the introductory paragraph that says she established a brand without having to provide a source after "Jessica jung is a singer, actress and fashion entrepreneur." Her having established a brand is enough to name her a fashion entrepreneur right? I only ask because it seems redundant to provide a source for fashion entrepreneur in this case. I get that fashion designer would need a source because her establishing a brand doesn't necessarily mean she's a designer and that more information needs to be written up on her work in fashion.