User talk:Ïvana/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Welcome!

Hi Ivanacccp! 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:

Learn more about editing

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:

Get help at the Teahouse

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

Volunteer at the Task Center

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

Happy editing! Bsherr (talk) 18:15, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

July 2020

Hello, I'm L293D. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to List of most-liked tweets—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. L293D (☎ • ✎) 21:12, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Access dates for most liked+most retweeted tweets lists

Hi Ivanacccp! When adding tweets to these tables could you please include the 'access-date' parameter as well i.e. the date you add a tweet to the list? That way when I'm doing cleanup on the articles, if any info is missing I can use that date to go back to the page history and find when it was added and by whom, or search Google around that time for refs to support the tweets. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 22:09, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Will do! -- Ivanacccp (talk) 01:11, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Retweets and comments

Hi! I want to point it out the new Twitter feature introduced in the last 1-2 months regarding the number of retweets displayed. So basically the new counter of retweets includes both retweets and retweets with comments (the "quotes"). The label has changed from "retweets" to "retweets and comments" and if you click it, you will see two columns displaying the number of retweets with comments and the number of retweets without comments. Before this new implementation, the Twitter counter included the retweets only (without the quotes). Here the article about this https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/12/21256586/twitter-ios-quote-tweets-retweets-with-comments#:~:text=The%20new%20feature%20organizes%20all,of%20retweets%20with%20no%20comment. Now I see that the wikipedia article about the list of the most retweeted tweets reports the new number that combines retweets and quotes but I think it would be better to go back to report the actual number of retweets that is in fact the number that counts for the "most retweeted tweets of the year" list disclosed by Twitter every year. Euphorian95 (talk) 15:56, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Euphorian95. Yes, I'm aware of the change. I contacted the Twitter employee who wrote the article disclosing the most retweeted tweets last year. She told me that the metric included rts and qrts, but for this year they haven't decided the announcement strategy yet. So I think it's better to keep the list as it is for now. -- Ivanacccp (talk) 16:58, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Chadwick Boseman

You got ahead of me :D MKgaspari (talk) 06:09, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

:) -- Ivanacccp (talk) 06:22, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Misleading editing

I mean it’s not wrong though. On KOMCA he’s listed as composer which is the same as producer. So stop editing that he didn’t produce when he actually did and is credited for it on KOMCA( korean music copyright association) which is an official thing. Purplebag54 (talk) 04:58, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Composer and producer are not the same thing. If you check the credits on soundcloud he is not listed as a producer. Ergo, we go with what the official credits say. - Ivanacccp (talk) 13:14, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Unnecessary Fix?

Article: Most subscribed YouTube music artists.

Why did you undo me? Blackpink is one group so you use "is". Maybe check my edit desc before you rv. SmallPotato ^talk 13:16, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I checked your edit description. The edit was unnecessary because the original wording was correct. Yes, Blackpink is one group, but "Blackpink is the most subscribed female artists on YouTube Music" doesn't make sense grammatically. "Blackpink is the most subscribed group (or girl group) on YouTube Music" would be a better choice. I'm not going to rv your last edit but I'll change female artists to group. - Ivanacccp (talk) 17:12, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

V BTS and Jungkook

Re: onehallyu.com KOMCA Master list 2020. It lists V with 12 copyrights co.composed co written songs. Jungkook has 10 Magic Shop was co composed and co written by JH, JK, RM and Suga Love is not Over co composed and co written by Jin and JK. You were quick to update JK's page.

Your failure to acknowledge V's talents and achievements is bias. He has made the Hall of Fame for Starmometer as Asian Heartthrob 3 years in a row. You can check their website. He. has countless records on Twitter, Twipple, Weibo, Baidu, Instagram,  YT, China's Super Topic, World's Handsome Man titles, Soundcloud, ITunes, Spotify, Sold out King of everything he wears from luxury items to lip balm. Yet you as a representative of Wikipedia  choose not to acknowledge any of it. News of V beating Adele and Psy's record is everywhere. I've donated to Wikipedia on the belief that all articles were accurate unbiased and up-to-date. 122.57.70.169 (talk) 14:25, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not a representative of Wikipedia, anyone can be an editor. Taehyung's writing credits are up to date. If you think something is worth mentioning you can make a suggestion here, with reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - Ivanacccp (talk) 17:02, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Ïvana! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Question regarding disruptive behaviour, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to . The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:03, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

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) 03:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Most liked list

When you have the time, I think you should go ahead and expand the list to 30 entries to match the most-retweeted list. Ik these lists are your forte so I figured it was better if you located the additional 10. I'll help with the footnotes+refs as needed. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 19:15, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

@Carlobunnie: Yes, I've been thinking about it, there's no reason for the lists to have different lengths. I'll work on it! (there's only a few non-BTS tweets with 2.7m likes so it won't take long) - Ïvana (talk) 20:36, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

@Carlobunnie: Well, it's done! I could only find one non-BTS tweet (Kobe Bryant had one but it's at 2.6m now and it's from January). I'll update the list if I find more. - Ïvana (talk) 22:00, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Not much we can do about who makes up the bulk of the list. It is what it is. I'll start looking into refs for the tweets. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 22:21, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Looking for source(s)

If/when you have the time, could you help locate a k-article talking about BTS extending their most daesangs record with their 2020 MMA/mama wins? I've been searching thru all articles since 2020 mama night come forward on Naver. Ik the TFMA win was their 52nd daesang overall so I'm hoping to find one that mentions all of this, or ones that mention either point. So far it's mostly been pieces talking about how many consecutive mma/mama sweeps they've done. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 22:49, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

@Carlobunnie: Sure! I'll let you know if I find something. - Ïvana (talk) 01:09, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

@Carlobunnie: Heeey, this is super old lol but I found some articles today. This one from Nación Rex mentions the 63 daesangs they have as of today, although I'm not sure if they can be considered a valid source. This one is from La República and I know you use them as a source sometimes so I guess they're good? They mention 57 daesangs which is obviously old now, but it's the closest I could find to the total number; only AAA, MMA and MAMA are missing. I haven't had luck on the english side or kside for now. - Ïvana (talk) 16:45, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

@Carlobunnie: Update, La República published another article mentioning how BTS extended their own record and have now 63 daesangs. Does this work? - Ïvana (talk) 16:23, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Hey sorry. Meant to reply to this last night, but fell asleep. Yes, the La Republica sources are good and can be used. Thanks for not forgetting abt this :) Go ahead and add if you have the time. I'm going back to sleep so I'll check it out later. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 18:24, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

@Carlobunnie: No problem and sorry for all the @s (including this one), wasn't sure if you saw my message! I'll leave the addition to you bc, assuming you want to add it to the list of awards article, the lead needs to be adjusted to also mention the all-kill from this year, so I don't wanna mess that up. I don't like to work on big chunks of text if I can avoid it, it's not even a bilingual problem bc it's the same in spanish lmao. But if you need another source lmk - Ïvana (talk) 20:04, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Finally made the update to the page. Thanks again for finding these. Hope you had a wonderful (but safe) holiday season, and all the best for the new year. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 23:56, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
1,066		Nth room case (talk)	Add sources
4,542		Twice (talk)	Add sources
360		Dark & Wild (talk)	Add sources
3,703		Grammy Award (talk)	Add sources
28		NSHM Knowledge Campus (talk)	Add sources
191		Canadian Hot 100 (talk)	Add sources
93		Signal Entertainment Group (talk)	Cleanup
223		Stephen Kozmeniuk (talk)	Cleanup
817		Let It Snow! Let It Snow! Let It Snow! (talk)	Cleanup
212		KBS Song Festival (talk)	Expand
23		MBC M (talk)	Expand
13,835		Twitter (talk)	Expand
122		Lena Park (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
967		History of YouTube (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
217		Park Hyo-shin (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
83		Cherry Bomb (EP) (talk)	Merge
13		On-Demand Songs (talk)	Merge
5,278		Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election (talk)	Merge
263		Rapsody (talk)	Wikify
68		Dale (album) (talk)	Wikify
78		Caspian (band) (talk)	Wikify
2		Good Luck (Beast song) (talk)	Orphan
5		Abdul Nabi Bangash (talk)	Orphan
2		Bovine Metabolome Database (talk)	Orphan
3		Festival Latinoamericano de Video Rosario (talk)	Stub
91		Iriver Inc (talk)	Stub
70		Dream Glow (talk)	Stub
570		Source Music (talk)	Stub
262		Owe My Love (talk)	Stub
25		Paraguayan Spanish (talk)	Stub

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 05:58, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of K-pop Hot 100 number ones, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Exo. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:19, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 8

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of most-streamed artists on Spotify, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Variety.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:24, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi

Hey there, just always remember no matter what your intentions, don't ever let anyone drag you down into an edit war because WP:3RR says 3 reverts and you're blocked. Never respond in kind. I just reported him to an admin. Also, I had left it down to just the logo for each flagship product, not each member of the series. — Smuckola(talk) 02:42, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

@Smuckola: Hello, yeah I reported the user because obviously reverting edits indefinitely is not an option. Hopefully an admin will intervene. I'll keep that in mind, thanks! - Ïvana (talk) 02:55, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Spotify most-streamed artists

Hi Iavana. What's your source for the most-streamed artists on Spotify? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soheilpro (talk • contribs) 04:11, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

@Soheilpro: Hi! Every artist profile on Spotify shows followers and monthly listeners, so that's what I use. There are some websites like Chartmasters that do the job, but 1) they don't update in real time 2) most of them are not considered reliable sources. So I take the data directly from Spotify. In the case of monthly listeners if one of the entries of the table slips out of the top 20 I just search manually through possible candidates to find the replacement. - Ïvana (talk) 04:57, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Lyrical themes

That was a nice edit you made last week on the BTS lyrical themes section. Have you given any thought to that section as to putting it into chronological order of themes or to organize it by subjects. Currently it looks like a 'selected' themes section collected by various editors at different times. Here is one article, not concentrating themes alone, which takes a chronological approach [1]. Any thoughts about enhancing the BTS lyrical themes section? ErnestKrause (talk) 15:30, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

@ErnestKrause: Thank you but honestly I don't consider myself good enough with words to do that, which is why I always prefer to update stats or find missing refs or add onto what's already been done. But if you or other editors decide to expand that section I'll be happy to help! - Ïvana (talk) 21:29, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

BTS Japan record

Hi Ivana, just let you know that I FOUND a reliable source to the information I added earlier which you deemed unreliable. Sometimes it's better to wait for better sources than simply revert edits. Now, it's under a Forbes source, which is reliable. Kindest regards. --CoryGlee (talk) 20:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

@CoryGlee: The information wasn't unreliable, the source was, which is literally what I explained in my revert. I wouldn't have reverted it if the whole sentence wasn't structured around the source, aka Soompi. I didn't have time to look for a reliable one and replace the wording so I reverted it and linked WP:KO/RS. It wasn't a personal attack. Have a nice day! - Ïvana (talk) 21:23, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Oricon archives

Hey would you mind archiving these urls for me? I left them archiving since early this morning when the charts updated (Wayback said it would take over 800 mins to save), but when I came back the pages hadn't moved anywhere even after refreshing (or the save page crashed+showed the "Internal Server Error" msg). I already saved them on archive.today so it's just Wayback that is the problem and I don't want to lose the sales data.

1. https://www.oricon.co.jp/rank/ja/d/2021-06-18/ (I was able to save p1, so it's 2+3 that still need doing)
2. https://www.oricon.co.jp/rank/dis/d/2021-06-18/ (still saying 822 mins even after a page refresh)
3. https://www.oricon.co.jp/rank/js/d/2021-06-18/ (not saving at all)
   If you can help tysm!!! -- Carlobunnie (talk) 21:59, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

@Carlobunnie: Sure, I'm on it. The average is 200 mins for me I never had a queue that long but wayback has been acting weird lately. - Ïvana (talk) 22:12, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

@Ïvana: I never used to get queues before (very rare ocassion it's happened in the past and was only a few minutes at most). Usually pages save instantly for me. After their most recent maintenance this week, this started happening for me. It's super annoying. I tried the pages again and now it's just ISE one after the other. I wanted to archive this Forbes article too, and same thing. First queue 200+ mins, second queue 100+ mins, now ISE. I give up! -- Carlobunnie (talk) 22:28, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

@Carlobunnie: Ok done!

1. https://web.archive.org/web/20210619222656/https://www.oricon.co.jp/rank/ja/d/2021-06-18/p/2/
2. https://web.archive.org/web/20210619223203/https://www.oricon.co.jp/rank/ja/d/2021-06-18/p/3/
3. https://web.archive.org/web/20210619223051/https://www.oricon.co.jp/rank/dis/d/2021-06-18/
4. https://web.archive.org/web/20210619223039/https://www.oricon.co.jp/rank/js/d/2021-06-18/
5. https://web.archive.org/web/20210619223043/https://www.forbes.com/sites/hughmcintyre/2021/06/17/bts-score-the-largest-one-week-sales-record-in-japan-of-2021in-just-one-day/

Yeah I never get queues, but sometimes wayback doesn't work at all. Let me know if you need something else! Seems like it works faster on my end. - Ïvana (talk) 23:04, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Oh man tysm! Um, can you check if Wayback shows you any archives for https://www.oricon.co.jp/rank/ja/d/2021-06-16/ with the sales data saved? I saved it the same morning of the chart update but when I went back today Wayback said there was no archive so I had to save the vers wo the sales. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 23:25, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

@Carlobunnie: Mmh no, it didn't show anything so I saved it: https://web.archive.org/web/20210619233713/https://www.oricon.co.jp/rank/ja/d/2021-06-16/ It says 2 captures now but the older one is not available for some reason. Either way my version works. - Ïvana (talk) 23:43, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes yours does, and I really can't understand that tbh. I have 2 diff emails from Wayback for the 2 diff times I saved working archives of that page ystrdy+today. I even manually double checked both of them were accessible a little while after I saved each one. Guess I'll have to email IA about it again. This isn't the first time I've thought an archive saved only for it to turn out later on that it doesn't even exist. And it's so problematic, esp when it's a time sensitive ref I want to save. Is it okay if I ask you to also keep an eye on the oricon charts+archives with me? I usually archive them every morning on WB+AT, but now I'm worried that this might happen again and I won't realize until it's too late. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 01:20, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

@Carlobunnie: Sure no problem, I can help with that. I don't usually use Oricon so to be clear, you archive the daily/weekly/monthly ranking for albums, singles and digital singles right? Like the ones I archived today. Nothing else? - Ïvana (talk) 02:19, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

@Ïvana: I archive the first 7 charts listed on the left menu, so from "Total (Weekly) Single" to "Streaming" (as per the chrome translated titles). And yes, daily, weekly, monthly. On Wayback and archive.today. Only if we enter a new chart will I then archive that until we're no longer on it. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 02:39, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

@Carlobunnie: Maybe this is because their server is still wonky but sometimes you can't access an archive unless you have the direct link. You can see here how it shows no results but I archived that this morning. So if that's the case you can check here for the link. The path separator changes from / to %2F so it looks uglier but it still works. You can always change it manually. Jsyk! - Ïvana (talk) 01:23, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

List of best-selling albums in South Korea

Hi there, you reverted my edits and said, "Records in this article are viewed as a whole, they're not divided by girl groups/boy groups/male soloists/female soloists/etc otherwise we would never stop"

I have two questions:

• Which policy of wikipedia are you referring to in your rationale?
• Why List of most-streamed artists on Spotify, List of most-subscribed YouTube Music artists, etc., have such demarcation?

Thank you. -ink&fables «talk» 10:25, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

@-ink&fables: Hi! It's not a policy per se (although maybe WP:FANCRUFT applies here), it's just to prevent unnecessary cluttering. If we mention girls groups then people are going to start adding more and more categories such as male soloist, female soloist, first male soloist since x year, first boy group and so on. Limiting it to album milestones, no matter who they belong to, makes more sense to me. In the articles you linked above the same logic is applied, only two categories are highlighted: male singer/act and female singer/act. Not to mention there are only 20-30 entries per table there, whereas the list of best selling albums gets longer every month. If you want to you can open a discussion on the article's talk page; I'm the only one who updates the stats regularly but some people participate in discussions as you can see in the last few posts there. - Ïvana (talk) 17:30, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

I understand what you want to imply but surely my edits were not fancrufts. The achievement is really notable because The Album is not only the first to sell more than a million copies in South Korea by a female group, but also the only album by a female act on that list (if I'm not mistaken). Even if you consider it to be fancruft, then according to the approach that has been suggested, it should not have been removed considering the notability. I do not wish to continue this discussion on the article's talk page, and I leave it to you, whether to include or not. Certainly there is no policy on wikipedia to support the removal of content added by me. I appreciate your contribution on wikipedia and think that your reasoning must be better than mine. Thank you and happy editing. -ink&fables «talk» 08:11, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

@-ink&fables: Now that I'm looking properly they're not the first female act to achieve 1m sales; the Pearl Sisters (group) did it in 1968, and Sumi Jo (soloist) did it in 2000. You can still argue that they could be mentioned because after all they're the only female act to match that achievement in years. I'm just trying to avoid an influx of editors adding unnecessary things using that as a precedent. After all, there was a revival of physical sales that started only a few years ago so a lot of acts qualify to be the 'first after x years'. But that's just my opinion and it doesn't mean I'm necessarily right. If you don't want to continue the discussion on the talk page thats fine! I'm actually planning on submitting the article for a peer review soon because I'm interested in getting it to FL status, so I'll ask if mentioning records like that one and adding more pictures would be advisable. Thank you for your messages. - Ïvana (talk) 14:48, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Music programs of South Korea

There's discussion of your action of which you may have been involved. See Talk:Music programs of South Korea 1Way4Together - J. Smile | Awards and similar items are not for sales 02:23, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

stalking

You know we Russians have a saying: "do not dig a grave for another, you yourself will fall into it". So, your parents (fans of male Russian names and culture) probably knew this. But you do seem to be and therefore are doing what you shouldn't. I could play this stupid game with you further, I could undo all your korea shit edits on far-fetched pretexts as you do with mine edits. But instead, I will appeal to the administration.109.254.254.156 (talk) 00:50, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Every time someone vandalizes an article, more often than not, they repeat that behaviour on other articles. Which is why I usually check their contributions. None of my reverts are or were unjustified. I took the time to check every source, including specific pages of books, to make sure that your modifications were incorrect, before reverting them. I linked those pages in my description edits, and in the case of wp violations, I linked the pages explaining how wp works. Personal attacks won't help you, if anything that's just another reason to report you again. Go ahead and undo all my edits if you want, that won't change how this site works. - Ïvana (talk) 01:34, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Removing personal information

Hey Ïvana, just wanted to let you know to contact the oversight team when removing personal information like you did here so that they can suppress, or 'oversight', it. This makes the information inaccessible from the page history, and prevents others from seeing it. I took care of it in this case. You can email the oversight team at Special:EmailUser/Oversight or make a request on irc at #wikipedia-en-revdel ^connect. Happy editing. EN-Jungwon 15:20, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

@EN-Jungwon: Hello. To be honest I wasn't aware of that policy, but I am now. In the future I'll make sure to contact the oversight team. Thank you! - Ïvana (talk) 16:34, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Zizek Bibliography: deletion of Russia Today publications

Hello Ïvana,

I write to you, because you have been editing the Slavoj Žižek Page. I'm editing the Zizek bibliography. Here I also mention the op-ed publications on Russia Today. There is a WP editor who holds the opinion, that these edits violate Wikipedia:RSP. I can't see how this is applicable. You can read my argument here. The editor doesn't respond.

If you have an interest in the subject, I would be happy, if you could contribute your opinion. If you don't have an interest, maybe you know someone else who might have?

With kind regards.

--Quin451 (talk) 13:34, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

@Quin451: Hello, sure! I'll take a look once I'm done with work. - Ïvana (talk) 15:30, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Hey

Certification updates are out already, unless you prefer to wait for the website. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 00:43, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Carlobunnie: I just got done with work and the website updates in 5 minutes so I guess it doesn't matter now. But thank you - Ïvana (talk) 01:55, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Rapacks on the best selling SoKo albums page

I posted a talk, but you seemed active so I wanted to reach out to you.

I think we should edit the page to nor merge repackages with the original release. I can’t think of a reason we would merge them on the wikipedia page meant to reflect the charts when said charts have them listed separately and don’t merge them. It feels inconsistent and inaccurate. Jayb.rd98 (talk) 19:27, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

@Jayb.rd98: Hello. I actually agree with you, and I posted about it here. But seems like the consensus is to keep it this way the discussion didn't reach a conclusion I guess. Hopefully more people participate this time and we can change it, because the current methodology doesn't make sense to me. - Ïvana (talk) 19:44, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Edit on Gaon Digital Chart article

"what is the criteria to choose achievements? weekly digital points from random years are unnecessary (why not monthly? why not all years? plus the source should refer to that specific week) and annual highest points are already published"

1. It is not from random years. Gaon Music Chart started publishing digital points in 2018 when they reformed the chart.

2. the criteria for weekly instead monthly. Music charts relevance are primarily for weekly data. Someone can read the article to know what song was the No. 1 in determined week, but it is like that number one with 25M points has the same weight as the one that reached number one with 60M points.

3. "plus the source should refer to that specific week". nope, it depends on the info. as like articles of Korean tv series, viewership is not specified. You need go to Nielseen Korea website and seach for determined date. The same here because it is how Korean industry publish their data.

4. "annual highest points are already published". ???? annual is not the same as weekly highest points.

I know I won't convince you, because you don't even tried to open a discussion on article's talk page before delete everything. But I'm here just to enlight you that I wouldn't just put a rondom shit in a Wiki page. I'm here 4 years, and I know how things work. Bominsky (talk) 00:51, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

1. In my opinion that is still unnecessary. We already have a yearly list. Highest weekly points of the year list seems excessive, not to mention harder to update. There are already a lot of stats to keep up. Not everything needs a section and people will mostly care about the final top 10.
2. A song having 25m points does have the same weight as one being #1 with 60, 100 or 600 points. You don't see points published in the Billboard Hot 100 chart. Or dates of when each song was unveiled in the yearly top 10 Gaon digital chart. Because if one song is #1 because it was out in January and another is #2 even tho it was objetively more successful but it was out in October that doesn't change the final ranking. That honestly seems like the kpop/stan mentality of nitpicking to brag about specific things for a lack of real achievements. Like oh, their song is not in the yearly top 10 BUT it was #1 in the week 37 of 2018!
3. The source should absolutely refer to the week mentioned. You can't expect the average reader to understand how Gaon works and manually search for a specific week. Which you CAN do, beause this isn't Melon, so there's really no excuse. Not sourcing properly also opens the door for users to add fake entries. Example, Antidote has x points in x week. The source should be this one, not this one.
4. Yeah, duh, obviously it's not the same. Annual is the summary of the year. Same as Gaon Album Chart, the stats are published on a yearly basis, which is also what kmedia picks up. The final list is updated monthly for albums and weekly for songs, because thats the earliest we have access to the data (sales for albums and points for songs).

I don't have to open a discussion to defend keeping everything the way it has been for years which also matches similar pages. If anything, the talk page is to discuss proposed changes and see if they add something of value or not. I don't know you so me reverting you is not a personal attack. It's not about "convincing" me. I gave you my reasons in the edit description, as someone with experience editing similar articles, because I regularly update pretty much everything related to Gaon. - Ïvana (talk) 02:14, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

"You don't see points published in the Billboard Hot 100 chart". No comparison, since Billboard does not publish they points on charts like Gaon does, and even if Billboard starts including points on Hot 100, it would be irrelevant since they also publish numbers for Streaming and Digital Sales, something that Gaon does not do. On Gaon, the weekly points are the only way someone can know how big is a song in the chart. Plus there are songs in the top 10 year-end, that can't even had reached the top 10 of highest weekly points, because most of them chart in the middle (of the chart) for almost an entire year.

Average people will never know that, because most of them think that what is on Wikipedia is sufficient. They probably will never search for it on Gaon website, and the annual list will make them believe that all that songs hit so big, when they not.

"I don't have to open a discussion to defend keeping everything the way it has been for years". ???? that's not the policy here. You just don't delete something to maintain it the way it has been for years. There are many motives (wiki rules) the community here delete without discussion, like misinsformation, neutrality, sources not reliable, too much information as well... but not on expand an article to keep it the way it had been for years lol. Articles on Wiki are supossed to be improvement and expanded.

Anyway, I understand your point, and I won't try to change it, maybe in the future someone try introduce it again. Talk page is supposed to be used. Use it.

Bominsky (talk) 05:13, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

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) 00:53, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

edit to "most-streamed artists on Spotify"

Hi, I am kinda new with editing Wikipedia pages, and i had a question about the last edit you made on the article List of most-streamed artists on Spotify. You changed something from the source i found, but i don't know what and why exactly. Can you explain that to me please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by An o niem ja (talk • contribs) 20:58, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

@An o niem ja: Hello! Sure. WP:CITEWEB explains how to appropiately cite sources using Template:Cite web. You can see in the diff of my edit the parameters I changed/added. I don't know what you use to get the template, but the parameters last and first refer to the name of the author of the article, not the editor that is adding the ref. Same with the rest, you need to add the title of the article, the date it was published, and where it was published (the website). All the values are extracted from the article. url-status is only added/used when the archive of the ref is mentioned (url-status=live displays the original version of the article as the first option to click on and url-status=dead displays the archived version first). In case of doubt just check how the other references are presented and go from there. Hope I make myself clear but if not just ask again! - Ïvana (talk) 21:52, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

edit to "most-streamed artists on Spotify" (again, i'm sorry)

Hi,

You said in your rollback edit that the whole table needs to be updated in one go, and that was what i did, but you still rollbacked it (you only rounded the numbers down in your recent edit). But why — Preceding unsigned comment added by An o niem ja (talk • contribs) 21:06, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

@An o niem ja: Hello - yeah, you always update the table correctly so the comment wasn't directed to you! There were a lot of selective/confusing updates before and after your edit so it was easier to just revert everything to the last stable version. Honestly I didn't even see your name, so if you did fix everything then sorry! I'll check more thoroughly next time. Pretty often in cases like this some editors fix mistakes but previous ones remain and I don't really wanna compare line by line to see if something was missed, so I just restore the page to the last good version and go from there. - Ïvana (talk) 21:51, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Okay i get it. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by An o niem ja (talk • contribs) 14:57, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Your post on my talk page

Hi there, I did not add any information to that article. I was recent changes patrolling and undid someone elses deletion, thought it was deletion of content without explanation (blanking). If I got a recent patrol change incorrect, happy to be advised :) Thanks. Such-change47 (talk) 12:38, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@Such-change47: Hey, sorry. There's an editor that has been adding that content repeatedly for the last few days. If you check the history of the page you can see how that has been reverted multiple times because it is not supported by the source cited. I just assumed you were him bc he's blocked now. My bad! - Ïvana (talk) 23:07, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@Ïvana: no worries at all! thank you :) Such-change47 (talk) 23:20, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello from boy band

I didn't come to harass. --Patcha007 (talk) 18:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

@Ïvana: What should I do? --Patcha007 (talk) 19:57, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

@Patcha007: Hello. You can look for a reliable source that supports the inclusion of the content you want to add. You can read more about it here and see some listed here. As a general rule, forums, other wikis o websites with no editorial oversight are considered unfit to use. - Ïvana (talk) 20:02, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

@Ïvana: The source is from the news agency, right? --Patcha007 (talk) 20:18, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

@Patcha007: Blogs fall under user generated content and are therefore considered unreliable. Please look at the links I mentioned previously before adding more sources. If you're not sure you can ask me and I'll tell you if they're good! - Ïvana (talk) 21:55, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

@Ïvana: Only 2 spots left, can you help me find a source? --Patcha007 (talk) 22:04, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Set index articles of Korean names

Hi, I'm not understanding the edits you're making to the large group of set index articles of Korean names, like what you have done at Sung-bin. Per WP:SIA#Common selection criteria, particularly the List of notable items section, there is no requirement for the subjects to have an article. ✗plicit 02:38, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi! Per WP:APOENTRIES, WP:NNAME, and hidden notes in some of the index articles, entries should have a certain level of notability. - Ïvana (talk) 17:03, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 21

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Han (name), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Zhang Han and Han Fu.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

March 2022

Since I am have made no edits on the Jimin article, I am prepared to archive and close the talk page discussion there as having no consensus for adding the edit under discussion. ErnestKrause (talk) 20:44, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

@ErnestKrause: Fine by me! I just mentioned you because you are usually active in the BTS article and I wanted to include a few more editors so it wasn't only the 2 or 3 directly involved in the discussion. Thanks for answering! - Ïvana (talk) 21:12, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

gaon social chart webpage

Hey could you archive this week's update of the GSC? Wayback has been giving me a lot for trouble this past week and I've been unable to save the GSC url in particular, even though I've tried multiple times since Wednesday to do so. WB always either says it'll take several hours to save, or that the archive has been saved x amount of minutes ago, but when I search for it the last-saved archive is May 25 only. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 01:03, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

@Carlobunnie: Hi, sure, I can try! I'll let you know if it works for me. - Ïvana (talk) 01:24, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

@Carlobunnie: Ok I just checked and out of the dozens of archives I tried to make some finally got saved and are available now, like this one!. - Ïvana (talk) 00:42, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

One finally saved for me too! Dated the 6th. It didn't appear until earlier today when I tried saving again. When I clicked the archive link from the email notif I got after saving, it took me to an archive dated the 6th instead of the 7th, so idek if the one dated the 7th saved at all, but atleast we have 2 now. Thanks for helping me out as always :) -- Carlobunnie (talk) 01:32, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Links

the links in the article. List of most-streamed songs on Spotify they are not complete and they are also very poorly added Tirso Gutiérrez (talk) 14:34, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

About sur name Kim

It is also written in Wikipedia, and I will write the text here that does not need to be reviewed. Plz don't start an editorial dispute.

Seonghan of Silla - Wikipediahttps://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Seonghan_of_Silla According to some theories, he was a son of Kim Alji, or a seventh-generation descendant of Xiongnu through the Han Dynasty general Jin Midi. 59.16.47.85 (talk) 00:22, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

[2]The source is a academia.edu site that states that Silla Kim came from the Huns Kim Il-je. Would it be said that this source is also uncertain? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.16.47.85 (talk) 00:26, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Academia.edu is a for-profit open repository of academic articles free to read by visitors.59.16.47.85 (talk) 00:32, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Hanbin

I’m unsure if you were a participant when this was being settled, but Hanbin of tempest belongs on that page and has been settled over a year ago. Admins has to get involved to stop people from continuing to remove him, it was determined that he was acceptable to be there and his article is currently in the process of being translated from Vietnamese.

If you could respect the decision that was made, that would be great, otherwise I will continue to have to fix it when you choose to not respect that decision Thank you very much Jayb.rd98 (talk) Jayb.rd98 (talk) 20:49, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

@Jayb.rd98: I don't see where the issue was settled - on the contrary, checking the talk page an editor raised the same point I've been making in my last reverts: an individual should be notable enough to have their own wikipedia article to be included. Discussions, especially when trying to reach a consensus, should be made in the talk page, where everyone can see them and participate. Either way, he has an article now, so I see no reason to remove the entry. - Ïvana (talk) 02:50, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

The discussion fizzled out some several months back when the two main people editing him out of the page had been banned by an admin for continued vandalism.

Jayb.rd98 (talk) Jayb.rd98 (talk) 04:54, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Promotion of List of Music Bank Chart winners (2021)

Congratulations, Ïvana! The list you nominated, List of Music Bank Chart winners (2021), has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best lists on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured list. Keep up the great work! Cheers, PresN (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

BTS Butter Page

Hello Ivana !! I have been checking out Butter's Page recently and i came across the controversy section which includes the infamous billboard article and uses it as a source. it has been almost a year since this incident happened but frankly it still irks me that this section is still included and somehow hasn't been removed despite everything.

I don't know if you were on twitter at that time or you have an idea about the matter, but the user who edited the page and added this section had a twitter page and they had numerous hate tweets against bts and armys and their account is filled with content targeted towards bts (ironically, just like the tweets included in the billboard article). so it is clear that the editing was with ill-intentions. i was looking through the bts talk page and i saw a discussion between you and him about that edit and i noticed that no one brought up the fact that he is a person who clearly hates bts and added that part of the article on purpose, so i thought that you did not know about this. i can link the tweets if you wish

And yeah, i found out that somehow his page still exists and he is still here doing edits daily.

I know it's been almost a year since this incident happened but i've been thinking alot about this lately; i am no expert, but isn't this considered a sort of vandalism taking into regard his intentions and the fact that he admitted adding the section because of his hatred? therefore shouldn't he be banned from being on here?

I think it's kinda disappointing that such people have the authority to change and have an input in public material like wiki pages when they are clearly not qualified to be one, again, i am no expert and i don't know wikipedia's policies regarding such things

This might sound like some kind of vent. but i really would like to hear your opinion on this !

Hope you have a nice day and thank you for you hard work on here <3

Sanarghzl (talk) Sanarghzl (talk) 15:21, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

@Sanarghzl: Hi! Yeah, I'm aware of the incident, it was a really stressfull couple of days. I actually opened a RfC on the BTS article (it is archived now) because the user, who has a clear agenda against BTS, wanted to include that information in multiple places, with a misleading tone. I'm not particularly happy with that being in the Butter article (although I along with other editors updated it so it highlights how common and non fraudulent that practice is) because I don't think is relevant enough to be mentioned. Is not something unique to BTS and armys, and it's not even applicable now because BB changed how much weight the sales have. Now songs are mostly carried by radio aka passive consumption. You could argue that that change was made precisely because armys found a loophole but that's a discussion for another day. I would support removing that from Butter because it wasn't really a controversy in the sense that it wasn't extensively covered so I don't think it warrants its own section, but you need to achieve a consensus on the talk page before doing a major change like that. You can open a discussion on the Butter talk page so other editors can chime in and decide if the content should be kept or not. In regards of that particular user, sadly I don't think publishing ill intended content like that is against Wikipedia rules. He technically didn't do anything wrong. His behaviour outside of Wikipedia is irrelevant in this case. There's no policy against being an anti lol as long as you follow the rules and add content from reliable sources, even if they're not particularly objective. Hope you have a nice day too! - Ïvana (talk) 18:54, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

@Ïvana: oh I see. I had the recent Billboard rules changes in mind too and I agree, it makes that section even less relevant right now. I'm glad that namjoon's statement and another article that sites an opposing point of view was included. even though i feel like looking at the number of articles that were written "defending" bts and debunking the "chart manipulation" claims by several sites such as Forbes, The Korea Times as already mentioned and many other sources, i honselty think the "controversy" part is over billboard and the article writer, not bts or army.

it definitely was an unpleasant period of time that we had to go through. but looking back at it, seeing all the rules billboard put that almost felt like some sort of sabotaging technique and making radio play the main contributor for charting knowing that bts never get the fair radio impact unless it's an english song or carried by another label. and still, they are able to chart and achieve great numbers. i think it's very telling that these claims were simply invalid and as joon said, bts were the targets of it just because they are a kpop act and people are unfamiliar with seeing such act achieve high numbers in the US.

anyways, I don't think im qualified to start a discussion about that section, im not very active here and i don't have so much experience to deal with something like this 😅 i don't know if it's too late to make changes to the page but i think you and your fellow editors would handle this much better. it's up to you honestly

again thank you for your work and thank you for sharing your opinion !

Sanarghzl (talk) 13:44, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

ANI Report from IP

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Hy Brasil (talk) 19:06, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

New Gaon/Circle Album Sales chart in 2022

Hi wouldn't it be better to update sales based on the new circle/ gaon retail album chart? The chart was updated in 2022 and now shows actual global sales and not just shipments like from the gaon/circle album chart. The Korea Herald published an article about it "Gaon Chart aims to become global kpop chart with new name" Simsky12 (talk) 15:34, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

@Simsky12: Hey, sorry for the late response. I think this should be discussed at WP:RECORDCHARTS, since this would affect a LOT of pages that use the Gaon (now Circle) chart. I personally haven't really looked into the newly created charts so I'm not sure how that one works. - Ïvana (talk) 18:34, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Kim Mingyu, Kim Hongjoong sources

Hey Ivana, I just wanted to ask what you would consider proper resources for both of the Kim’s who hail from the Gwangsan Kim clan. I saw in the edit history that people have linked videographic sources of them themselves saying that they are in fact descendants of the Gwangsan Kim clan, but their addition to the list of known descendants keeps getting removed by both yourself and others. What would be sufficient in order to keep their name in the list? Thank you for your time!

Also, if this comes across as rude, it is not intentional and I apologize if I come across that way. DC11961 (talk) 02:11, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello Ivana, my username here at Wikipedia is Nadiaminki, my question is why are you removing my additions to the article when I've cited them with different sources, in English and Korean about Kim Mingyu and Kim Hongjoong and insisting on the "no notability in the article"? I don't want to be deemed rude, English isn't my first language or my mother tongue. What requirements I'm missing so both of them can stay on the Gwangsan Kim clan wiki? Thank you for your attention and time! Have a nice day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nadiaminki (talk • contribs) 20:01, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

@DC11961: @Nadiaminki: Sorry for the late response. The notability issue refers mostly to the person being added. They need to at least have a stand-alone article (see WP:N). Regarding proper sources, you can see a list of reliable sources at WP:KO/RS and WP:RSPSS. Also, it is always better to use secondary sources. - Ïvana (talk) 11:34, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Grammy noms

I'm pretty sure that BTS has had more than 5 noms at the Grammy's over the years; are you sure you want to put it that way in the lead as you did yesterday? ErnestKrause (talk) 15:37, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

@ErnestKrause: The number was already mentioned in the lead, I just updated it. They have 5 nominations—one in 2021, one in 2022 and three for 2023. You can check List of awards and nominations received by BTS for sources. - Ïvana (talk) 15:45, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

That old number was documented by the past Grammy wins already in the article; the new nomination has not been added to the main body of the article as yet from what I've seen. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:08, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

@ErnestKrause: Right. Should be added to the body of the article then, although the awards list is linked. Or we could simply change the lead to not mention a specific number so we don't have to update it every time they get a nom, like with the other awards mentioned on the same sentence. - Ïvana (talk) 13:40, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

That's it precisely; and my reading of your version when you say "...simply change the lead to not mention a specific number", looks like a good way to go on this. If you can figure out this wording for the lead section and add it there, then I'll try to support your edit. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:15, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

@ErnestKrause: Ended up adding a paragraph with sources for the additional three noms after checking multiple articles of acts with no wins since the number is usually always mentioned, so I'm assuming it's common practice—I could only find one example using vague language ('nominated for several Grammy Awards'). Feel free to copyedit it! - Ïvana (talk) 04:35, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

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) 01:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi, I accidentally reverted your revert on So-won while looking at the notification, but I changed it back. I apologize if you saw that version. I looked at the page history after that, and I wasn’t aware that I wasn’t supposed to add group members who didn’t have their own article, so it was helpful that you linked to the policy. UnderTheBusDweller _(talk) 07:06, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

@Underthebusdweller: No problem! Thanks for the message . - Ïvana (talk) 21:23, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Most monthly listeners

Bro just deleted half of the wiki page... Why, because of "unreliable" sources? Why don't you go find sources than? An o niem ja (talk) 20:27, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

@An o niem ja: The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material. I don't really have time during the week to look for replacements but deleting information that is not properly sourced is the right thing to do. I linked all of the policies and requirements that were not being met, so you know exactly what kind of websites to avoid. I'm also not sure about some of the other sources which seem to fall under WP:UGC but, again, I don't have time right now, so I just removed the most obvious ones. - Ïvana (talk) 00:20, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

December 2022

Are you sure about your conscription revert for Suga; there are over a dozen reliable sources which have reported this here: [3]. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:15, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

@ErnestKrause: Answered on the talk page! - Ïvana (talk) 17:57, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

On a separate topic; how are you on Interwiki use of images for popular culture. Do you do well when you need to transfer images from one language version of Wikipedia to another and similar issues? ErnestKrause (talk) 21:57, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

@ErnestKrause: I have cero experience with anything related to images in Wikipedia which is why I never uploaded any. Maybe Btspurplegalaxy can help you with that? - Ïvana (talk) 22:18, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Ïvana,
Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, and a Happy New Year to you and yours! Btspurplegalaxy 💬 🖊️ 00:08, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

---

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

– Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year}} to user talk pages.

Btspurplegalaxy 💬 🖊️ 00:08, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@Btspurplegalaxy: Happy new year!! - Ïvana (talk) 01:45, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

On The Weeknd's Spotify record

I tried looking for a good source (one that doesn't violate WP:TWITTERREF), but a google search only gives back either articles that reference this tweet by @chartdata, or the tweet itself. I saw, in your revision summary, that it also needs to link to the Spotify page, which as you said changes daily. I'm assuming you want a Wayback Machine archive of the page, but Spotify doesn't really work on Wayback Machine. I'm messaging you directly so I can get more information on how to add a reliable source that complies with Wikipedia's standards. Having the old record of Justin Bieber on the page also bugs me quite a bit, as I kinda like when Wikipedia reflects the current status of things. I've put up an {{Oudated}} template on the section of Time of Peak Monthly Listeners for now.

Sincerly, Dontuseurrealname (talk) 19:49, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

@Dontuseurrealname: You don't need to link to his Spotify page; another editor used that as the only ref which is unnacceptable. We need secondary sources to support new data. My advice would be simply to wait for articles to come out and then add one. It may take some days? Since this just happened very recently. - Ïvana (talk) 20:46, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

WHy did you undo my revision

Why did you undo my revision on the list of CSM characters? HiGuys69420 (talk) 04:09, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

@HiGuys69420: Because it was incorrect. The name of the third brother has not been revealed and the restaurant is a fast food one. Sato is a different character. - Ïvana (talk) 14:48, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

ok fair enough HiGuys69420 (talk) 15:26, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Stop stalking my ass?

First ,u got in the page of most-liked Instas reveting my things "juste because blablah we can't erase ??" But why would anyone put in the talk page that selena gomez got one million ,and few minutes later u got onto Lady Susan Hussey of The United Kingdom where the maiden name is only for the divorceed and reverted my things again?? This is not a coincidence U R stalking my page 41.249.136.226 (talk) 18:29, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

@41.249.136.226: Unless it is obvious vandalism, I don't revert without explaining why, which is what I did with your edits. So I'm not sure why you're confused. Learn the rules and no one will revert you again. - Ïvana (talk) 01:30, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Face sales record

Hey, can you check the most recent edit I made on the page? I think my wording of the record based on the Newsis article might be slightly off, but I'm not 100% sure. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 20:51, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

@Carlobunnie: Sure (sorry I'm always late) - Ïvana (talk) 21:57, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

@Carlobunnie: The wording is fine. The article only names soloists who also sold 1m copies with their respective groups, aka Seo Taiji, Baekhyun, and Jin. A veeery specific achievement but that seems to be the norm in Kpop lol. There are a lot of soloist that surpassed 1m sales (mostly in the 90's) so overall he's like the 15th person or so to do it—not worth mentioning tbh, which is why they made this distinction. I think it's ok to keep it, I mean it is an achievement after all, but in my opinion just saying that he's the first one to do this in a day would be enough. It's not like that's a small feat. Although if we remove it I know some people will complain. I always feel like if you have to add a bunch of conditions for a record to be a record is not really one - you know how some fans say things like "first 4th gen group in 2023 from a non big 3 company to chart 2 songs consecutively in this very specific chart" like girl let's be honest.. but yeah, in short, it looks good to me, but I wouldn't be opposed to trimming it a little bit. At this rate he's probably gonna make it to the top 10 of fastest selling albums so that would be a better thing to mention (if it happens). - Ïvana (talk) 22:35, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Ikr? I also thought it was a very specific thing to mention lol. I was expecting the record to be one similar to that of Jin's with LYW and Baekhyun, but it was this instead. Perhaps as more articles come out, they'll mention something else. This was the only one out at the time and if I didn't write something, there's a high chance someone would've come in and put something that couldn't be sourced past a twitter fanbase annoucement, like what happened on his BLP earlier. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 23:13, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Tobias Forge

Hi, saw that you removed what I added to the article Tobias Forge. The sources are directly from the magazine (Frimuraren) of the Swedish Order of Freemasons and they have stated at least twice that Forge is a Freemason. Additionally, in 2018, former band members stated that he had connections with Freemasonry.

Sources: Frimuraren nummer 4 2019 swedish, Frimuraren nummer 4 2020 swedish, EX-GHOST MEMBERS CLAIM TOBIAS FORGE'S FREEMASONRY TIES TAINTED TRIAL OUTCOME -- Slagmannen924 (talk) 16:13, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

@Slagmannen924: Third source definitely falls under WP:RUMOR - someone claiming or speculating that he is a Freemason doesn't necessarily make it true (even if we know it is true). I guess the first ones are alright although it would be better to find secondary sources (see WP:PST). Thanks for reaching out! - Ïvana (talk) 17:13, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Could you check a url for me?

I usually update the IMI International Top 20 Singles page and archive the chart every Monday when it updates, but the past three weeks (the last 2 and this week) the url's been redirecting to these rly weird spam/ad pages for me and when I try to archive it, it saves as a captcha page. Could you access the url and tell me if it redirects for you/try to archive it on archive.vn and see if it saves like normal? Thankfully someone else has also been saving it on Wayback so there are useable archives where I was unable to create any, but the archive.vn archives are no good for me. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 16:16, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

@Carlobunnie: Sorry was in a meeting at work heh. I just checked the url and when I first tried to access it it redirected me to one of these spam pages (even though I use AdBlock). It did work on the second try. Archive vn didn't work at all, and looking through the saved archives the last good one was from 3 weeks ago so exactly when your problem started - they probably added ads there. Wayback didn't work for me (tried it multiple times, it just saves the captcha thing) but if it has been saved this week then that means it is not impossible. I guess it's just a matter of trying multiple times :/ - Ïvana (talk) 18:44, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

System is not a history.

System is not a History. Dali Yang Yizhen is notable. Are you is contract or responsible? 2001:448A:20E0:6E0B:DDC9:7093:788F:2563 (talk) 00:41, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Are you paid writer of Yang (Surname)?2001:448A:20E0:6E0B:DDC9:7093:788F:2563 (talk) 00:46, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

We must do something.

Below are lists of common South Korean family names and Korean first names.

Korean Names - A Complete List of Meanings and Examples (90daykorean.com)

https://www.90daykorean.com/korean-names/

It is newer and a lot more differents.

Just do. 2001:448A:20E0:6E0B:DDC9:7093:788F:2563 (talk) 01:01, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Better than others and not the blogs.2001:448A:20E0:6E0B:DDC9:7093:788F:2563 (talk) 01:19, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Talk:The_Storm_Before_the_Calm#Euro_label

Share your thoughts regarding the album if you wish to. 113.210.105.245 (talk) 10:41, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Take Two songwriter credits

Komca updated Take Two on the db and idk whether I should replace the Melon source or not. Nois Upgrader is apparently Shin Won Park (if you click on his Melon profile), but Komca uses SWP only (and doesn't cite his NU name) while Spotify uses NU just like Melon (as do all the other music sites that list credits like Spotify, NetEase etc.). -- Carlobunnie (talk) 18:45, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

@Carlobunnie: For me Komca always takes precedence over other sources. I also just noticed that he already has an article here which we can link to using only his legal name Park Shin-won. I'm 100% sure it's him because it credits him as the writer of a B1A4 song so it's easy to double check in Komca that it is the same person. There's no mention of that alias anywhere in Wikipedia apart from Take Two, whereas his name pops up in a couple of articles. - Ïvana (talk) 20:45, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Didn't even know he had an article. Yeah for sure Komca is the better source, but what I was trying to say is that as no other source except Komca credits him as SWP (all the streaming platforms credit him as NU) I wondered if it might be confusing to readers if I were to change his credit to SWP instead of NU. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 21:04, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I would still use his real name even if it changed for this particular song just for consistency sake.. I'm not sure when he changed his name or if this is gonna be a fixed thing from now on like with RM. If you want to be extra careful we could just link to his article twice like we do with the first mention of Agust D. - Ïvana (talk) 21:20, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 1

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kim (given name), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kim Smith.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Category:Song recordings produced by Suga (rapper) has been nominated for renaming

Category:Song recordings produced by Suga (rapper) has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Btspurplegalaxy 💬 🖊️ 06:36, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Images on honorific nicknames article

Hi, I readded BoA's image to the article because I felt like it did not have enough representation from non-American musicians as they take up probably 90% of the images. Among Korean singers, BoA is perhaps most widely associated with any honorific nickname so I figured she deserves a image on the article. Thoughts? ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 12:34, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

@Nkon21: I'm really not that much into the overall Korean scene but I will assume that what you say is correct heh. On a mainstream scale BTS is the clear stand-out, although I don't think they're strongly associated with a specific moniker. I know about the IU one though. Anyways, my rationale for removing the Boa picture was not related to her status or my opinion of her or anything of the sort (I barely know her tbh), I simply wanted to avoid having too many pictures. I think coming up with a clear rule regarding the limit will prevent the article being flooded in the future. I'm all for representation though. We could restore her picture and delete the Ruth Brown one from the B table? I'm not American so no idea who that is. - Ïvana (talk) 13:18, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

We could either remove Christina Aguilera's (I don't know if she's widely known as "voice of a generation") or Ruth Brown (although I'm American I have never heard of her also, but perhaps that's only because her peak was in the 50s). I'm leaning a bit towards Aguilera but either one would be fine with me. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 14:16, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

@Nkon21: Aguilera is in the A table. From the B table we had Beyoncé, James Brown and Ruth Brown. I replaced Ruth's picture, I doubt anyone will complain. - Ïvana (talk) 14:46, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Why you keep deleting wonwoo's name?

hi, why you keep deleting jeon wonwoo's name from 'Jeon (Korean Surname)' article. It seems some people added his name so many times but you keep deleting it. EverythingEverywhereEveryone.W (talk) 10:28, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

@EverythingEverywhereEveryone.W: I linked the relevant policy (WP:CSC, WP:APOENTRIES also works) every time I did a revert. I remove anyone who fails notability aka they don't have they own article yet. This is a Wikipedia standard. - Ïvana (talk) 12:43, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Golden digital album US store archive

Do you know any American editor who works on BTS related pages (or not) that could archive the Golden digital album store link on archive today? Because I'm not from the US, it saves with the disclaimer msg over it every time I access the link. On Wayback it saved just fine, but archive today is the problem. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 15:54, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

@Carlobunnie: What about Nkon21 (talk · contribs)? I just checked a few people I'm familiar with and this was the only match I could find. - Ïvana (talk) 18:29, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Sure. I didn't even remember that he's American 😅. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 18:38, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of List of most-streamed artists on Spotify for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of most-streamed artists on Spotify, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Spotify streaming records until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

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) 00:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Layover's songs

Someone changed the type of songs "Love Me Again" and "Rainy Days" from single to B-side. Is this edit correct? Estyxxxx (talk) 09:31, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

@Estyxxxx: Hi, I've checked the Layover article cause I've had discussions about what constitutes a single before, but it seems there's consensus that at least those two tracks are singles. So I've reverted the ip. Thanks for noticing! The edits got lost on my watchlist. - Ïvana (talk) 19:06, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Really appreciate your activity to restore wrong edits. Estyxxxx (talk) 19:33, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi again, could you please update the "Commercial performance" paragraph in 2 Cool 4 Skool about "No More Dream" reaching number one on the World Digital Song Sales chart on December 30, 2023? Estyxxxx (talk) 15:59, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

@Estyxxxx: Done! - Ïvana (talk) 16:59, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! you are awesome!

By the way, why is there no information on the pages of V, RM, etc. regarding the recruitment? Estyxxxx (talk) 17:07, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

@Estyxxxx: Mostly because nobody bothered to add it. I'll get to it whenever I have time (I'm technically working now lol). You can also add it yourself if you feel comfortable doing so - but if not I'll do it later. - Ïvana (talk) 17:13, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

My English is bad so I think it would be wrong of me to add it myself. In any case, thanks for the response, I thought for some secret reason it was forbidden to write about their recruitment. Estyxxxx (talk) 17:17, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Honorific nicknames in popular music

Hi! What is wrong with Ceca being on the list? I provided the source. Vjko (talk) 17:24, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

@Vjko: Hello, when you edit the article you get a little notice at the top of the page listing out the requirements for new entries to be added. I'll repeat them here:

In efforts to reduce the level of WP:FANCRUFT on this page, all new entries to this page MUST have proof that the nickname has been used on a widespread basis:

1. Every nickname must be supported by at least THREE high quality and reliable sources. Obscure sources will not be accepted.
2. Some examples of high quality and low quality sources can be found at WP:RSP.
3. Stronger sources that explicitly write "widely", "known", "dubbed", "often called" and so on is preferable.
4. In addition, non-honorific nicknames and superlatives do not belong here.

Any entries that fail to satisfy these requirements will be reverted. Thank you for your understanding. - Ïvana (talk) 20:16, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Does it matter if the sources are in serbian, since Ceca is not so widely known outside of the Balkans? Vjko (talk) 20:20, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

@Vjko: Language doesn't matter, the sources (remember, they need to be at least three) do not necessarily need to be listed in WP:RSP for them to be valid since it will always be an incomplete list, but they need to be reliable. You can read more about this at WP:RELIABILITY. - Ïvana (talk) 23:35, 20 January 2024 (UTC)