User talk:Sa Young Sun

October 2020

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Awkwafina Is Nora from Queens, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. — YoungForever^(talk) 15:12, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 2021

Hello, I'm Paper9oll. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to So Joo-yeon have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. — Paper9oll (📣 • 📝) 13:36, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Paper9oll. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Kim Ji-won (actress) have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Discussed before in WT:KO in regarding naming convention, search the archive — Paper9oll (📣 • 📝) 13:37, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Kim Ji-won (actress). Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. — Paper9oll (📣 • 📝) 13:47, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at So Joo-yeon. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. — Paper9oll (📣 • 📝) 13:48, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Paper9oll: Excuse me, I have a question. Is it wrong to put on the official translation? The name is came from Netflix page and subtitles.--Sa Young Sun (talk) 14:09, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sa Young Sun: Please stick to Wikipedia standard naming convention instead. There is a reason why you don't see for example, Im Yoon-ah named as Im Yoon-a in Wikipedia. Basically, my point is you don't see for example ah as a, etc even though the English media or Netflix (which is run by English people) may depict it such. In addition, your edit on changing yi to i is simply ridiculous. Like ah, reader/user/editor who are not well-known with Korean pronounciation may pronounce it as A (as in the alphabet A) instead of ah, same for yi they will just pronounce it as I (the alphabet I).

Furthermore Wikipedia is not fancruft hence don't expect all readers/users/editors to understand how it should be pronounced which is why there is guidelines to follow. — Paper9oll (📣 • 📝) 14:37, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also forgot to point out that changing it without providing reliable source is considered adding original research, quoting Netflix subtitles is not a valid reason. As stated earlier, there is already guidelines provided in regards to how Korean names should be included/named in English Wikipedia. — Paper9oll (📣 • 📝) 14:45, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Paper9oll: 이 as "i" isn't ridiculous, I don't understand why not go through the official translation. Like Youn Yuh-jung isn't Yoon Yeo-jung, Cho Yeo-jeong isn't Jo Yeo-jung. I thought the translation of Netflix would be better than what the editor guessed (or random spelling). If Netflix isn't a reliable source, will the names of the characters from each Netflix original series be an original search?

"If there is no established English spelling, then Revised Romanization should be used for South Korean and pre-1945 Korean names", why official translations wasn't "established English spelling"? For RR, "i" isn't wrong. Did I miss something?--Sa Young Sun (talk) 18:32, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at So Joo-yeon, you may be blocked from editing. — Paper9oll (📣 • 📝) 04:47, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Paper9oll: Do you have any reliable sources says her real hanja is 蘇珠妍? Chinese Wikipedia needs a temporary name (transliteration), but in English Wikipedia, doesn't it like an original search?

Please point out what's wrong with "i" in RR, I really can't figure out... In addition, 소주연's agency and instagram shows that her English name is "So Ju-yeon", not "So Joo-yeon".--Sa Young Sun (talk) 05:22, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sa Young Sun: How is it original research, did you click the linktext for 蘇, 珠 and 妍 and scroll down to Korean? I already told you that there is guidelines for the naming convention and currently you are not thinking in NPOV but rather saying i should be pronounce as yi when I already told you previously that user/editor/reader that not well-verse with Korean pronounciation will pronounce it the alphabet I instead. For So Joo-yeon if you wish to change it So Joo-yeon, you can initiate requested move request with your Instagram source (which is considered unreliable source even if it from official channel). If you think, I'm the one talking nonsense, you can see Talk:Im Yoon-ah/Archive 2#Requested move 8 December 2020 where the discussion topic is similar to what I am pointing to. — Paper9oll (📣 • 📝) 05:44, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Paper9oll: For Hanja, 소주연 can be 蘇珠妍, 蘇周延, 蘇柱然, 蘇珠娟... You need to click the linktext for 소, 주, and 연, not click from Chinese. Korean has their own Hanja, like 임윤아 can be 林潤娥, 林允兒, but her real Hanja is "林潤妸". 송윤아 can be 宋允兒, but her real Hanja is "宋玧妸". If you search 任, 尹, and 雅 on wiktionary, you will see the Korean name of 任尹雅 is 임윤아 too, but you wouldn't say Im Yoon-ah is 任尹雅. When they haven't revealed their real hanja, I don't think it's a good idea to post transliteration of Hanja on English Wikipedia.

I can't find any situations like i/yi or o/oh, and I didn't say "i should be pronounce as yi". According to WP:NCKO: "If there is no established English spelling, then Revised Romanization should be used for South Korean and pre-1945 Korean names." Netflix original series used "i", and "i" is correct to RR, so I'm really confused...

For Im Yoon-ah, her Instagram and YouTube is Lim Yoon-a, but Im Yoon-ah is more common (even I prefer to follow what the artist says). For fictional characters, You can search Lovestruck in the City, Rin-i is more common than Rin-yi. So I don't understand why the editor guessed is more suitable than the official translations. Is it about pronunciation? Where is the guideline, please? Because I haven't found...--Sa Young Sun (talk) 07:13, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sa Young Sun: You may remove the hanja if there’s no source to support it, remember to write something relevant in the summary so that other editors are aware on why it was removed else it would be misunderstood as a form of vandalism. The guidelines, I am referring to the WP:NCKO even though not complete version for every words. Anyway, if you wish to revert it to i then free feel to do so. However, if you are creating article for a person, do note that you should follow what is already defined, if unclear you open discussion on WT:KO on which naming is correct. However, do note that you shouldn’t be going around and changing the naming unnecessarily without providing a valid reason in doing so even if you think your version is correct. I am letting this off because the drama article uses the same naming convention. — Paper9oll (📣 • 📝) 08:22, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Song Yoon-ah, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Daum. 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) 06:24, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 2021

Hello, I'm Crboyer. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Florida Film Critics Circle Awards 2020 have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Dink Johnson? Crboyer (talk) 17:39, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Crboyer: Sorry, the mistake came from my Chrome app. I didn't notice that.--Sa Young Sun (talk) 17:55, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi Sa Young Sun! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, About the starring of film, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread.

See also the help page about the archival process. 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}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April 2022

Hello, I'm Paper9oll. Your recent edit(s) to the page Business Proposal appear to have added incorrect information, so they have been reverted for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 13:16, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Business Proposal. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 13:50, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Paper9oll: Do you know what is 기획 and 제작? If you really watch the show, the credits says 기획 is StudioS, 제작 is Kakao Entertainment and Kross Pictures.--Sa Young Sun (talk) 13:56, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Business Proposal, you may be blocked from editing. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 13:57, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Paper9oll: You didn't answer the question.--Sa Young Sun (talk) 14:01, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Paper9oll: [1] You're nonsense, this is the scene of end credit of the show. Why don't you just watch the show?--Sa Young Sun (talk) 14:10, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sa Young Sun In case you're still unaware, we only write on what WP:RS reported on which the current sources are considered as reliable sources per WP:KO. Unless, you can provide WP:RS to show that the included reliable sources is incorrect factually otherwise no changes will be make since you can't WP:PROVEIT with reliable sources, and we don't use screenshots to WP:PROVEIT, whether you like it or not, this is English Wikipedia and that's how things work, I'm just following the policies and guidelines. And btw, I did watch the show, just check back the article's history, you will see that the plot summary is contributed and expanded mostly by me, don't bark up the wrong tree. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 14:27, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Paper9oll: The news is wrong. I know what Wikipedia:RS is, and I didn't mean screenshots could be the one. But in this case, the information of the staff is from the show, just like MOS:TVCAST, the news won't present the correct order of the cast, the "only" reliable source is "the show". The staff won't reveal everything to the news, if you don't watch the credits, you won't know who is cinematography, editor and the others. According to what you saying, Friends, Game of Thrones, Glee is all wrong.--Sa Young Sun (talk) 15:05, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sa Young Sun Don't come and butter me with WP:OTHERSTUFF when all I asked for, is to have you provide a reliable source which I have said earlier, it's a very simple thing hence I'm not sure why on earth you're overly complicating such a simple thing. In case, I haven't make myself clear earlier, I repeat myself more explictly again, you just to need to provide a citation pointing to the time of occurrence which in this case is the credits portion period which you failed to do in the 3 edits you made earlier, moving Kakao Entertainment from creator to company with existing source is considered as failed verification because that's not what the existing source reported on, hence you causing factual errors. All you need to do is move Kakao Entertainment from creator to company and also replaced the source. Fyi, there is this thing called Template:Cite episode ... which I have fixed in this update which is what you should have done earlier but failed to do so but instead having a pointless discussion that goes in circles because you don't even know what the problem exactly is but ranting about other stuff. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 15:40, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Paper9oll: The problem is you don't know what I'm talking about. I'm keep telling you the end credits can be the resource. Friends is Wikipedia:Good articles, the TV series article is follow the opening / end credits, but you just want the things goes what you want. I know what the guidelines said, I don't need you to tell me what to do. I know what you asked for, it seems easy, but there no any news articles is correct, so the only reliable resource is the end credits, but you keep bother me with nonsense. We don't post Netflix video as resource, you can see it at other TV series articles, just like the episode plot summary, there's no need. But if you think it's right, I'm cool with it.--Sa Young Sun (talk) 16:31, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sa Young Sun Citation is not nonsense btw, it's mandatory, so your statement "I know what the guidelines said, I don't need you to tell me what to do" shows that you're unaware what I'm simply asking for from the start instead blaming other stuff exists, here and there, this and that. "I know what you asked for ... so the only reliable resource is the end credits" if you know then why on earth are you blaming other stuff exists, here and there, this and that then instead of providing it right from the start or after the first revert??? We are allowed to post Netflix video as resources/citation, to ensure the content is verifiable. But anyway ... long story short, the issues has been solved. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 04:04, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Paper9oll: I never say citation is nonsense, stop twist my words. Just let me ask you, how do you know the order of the cast members? I didn't see you put any resource to prove it, why don't you put on the Netflix or SBS's video as resource like what you ask to other people? It's the same situation, you just afraid to face it. Why All of the TV series articles didn't ask to put on the "video" as resource to prove the staff members? Why they didn't ask the resource of episode plot summary? Because the resource is itself, watch it then you will get it. You keep ignore what MOS:TVCAST said. It's all about the information of the show, but you the one who think it's ridiculous, and still unaware why TV series articles didn't do the way you think it must to. I didn't mean there's no need any reliable resource, but the show can be the prove. Long story short, I'm right about the staff members, I got what I want, so I'm cool with what you put on as resource, let this end there, thanks.--Sa Young Sun (talk) 10:27, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sa Young Sun Nobody is twisting your words, you said itself by referring to why other article can this and that for three times at 15:05, 15:39, and 16:31 on 14 April. Firstly, for cast, for article that I've created, I ordered it based on casting order initially, which is 100% compliance with MOS:TVCAST, so again barking up the wrong tree, go check back on initial revision next time before pinging me and accusing me. Why All of the TV series articles didn't ask to put on the "video" as resource to prove the staff members? again this is WP:OTHERSTUFF, what other article do/does isn't my concern, for articles that I have created and articles that I didn't created but contributed highly to, I expect such details to be sourced. For plot summary and/or synopsis, no source is needed unless under certain circumstances such as quoting in which citation is needed otherwise it's considered as copyright violation, anyway pointless explaining to you, when you're pretty much barking up the wrong tree repeatedly. Lastly, I'm right about the staff members, NO you're not right, you didn't even bothered to providing a reliable source in whatever format initially and when asked to do so, and instead keep questioning other article this and that, here and there, which I still assumed you didn't get the whole point of this discussion which is simply to provide a single reliable source regardless of whatever format (Cite web, Cite episode, etc) as per WP:BURDEN instead of questioning WP:OTHERSTUFF period. Anyway, as I've have mentioned above, and you admitted it as well, this issues has been resolved, and I don't wish to see you do similar things in the future in articles that I created and/or highly contributed to as I've communicated it clearly to you and to repeat it again is to provide a single reliable source regardless of whatever format (Cite web, Cite episode, etc) as per WP:BURDEN.

Fyi, you're free to reply since this is your talkpage, but I won't be entertaining you since the goal of this entire discussion is to repeat it for final time, to provide a single reliable source regardless of whatever format (Cite web, Cite episode, etc) as per WP:BURDEN which has been met and resolved. Have a nice weekend and goodbye! — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 12:06, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Paper9oll: When did I say "Citation is nonsense"? Point it! WP:OTHERSTUFF is not talking about "Citation is nonsense". So you did twist my words. According to what you said, it means the the Good articles isn't follow the guidelines, like what I did, isn't? Or do you mean the articles you wrote isn't "TV series articles"? Now, you admit the order the cast is follow MOS:TVCAST, the opening / end credits, I know it's right all the time, but where is the "reliable resource"? You ask me to put the Netflix or SBS's video as resource to prove, but what about you? Do you point ??:?? is An Hyo-sub, ??:?? is Kim Se-jung in the opening/ending credits? I'm not barking up the wrong tree, but just proves you do the same at the order of the cast, but think other people is "disruptive editing". The situation of the plot summary and/or synopsis is not all about copyright, even references from the resource, it still need to write by our own words. Why the articles like The Aftermath (30 Rock) didn't ask resource to prove? Because the resource of the plot or cast member is itself, the video. But you the only who think it's not a reliable resource, or need to point clearly. Who donna check what article you create at the first when we want to edit it? Who will do that? Thank you for stop bother me, God!--Sa Young Sun (talk) 14:31, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You did watch the show, but did't see who is 기획 and 제작? And you think the staff who produced the show (the end credits) is not reliable than the news? If the staff didn't release the credits, that IMDb got the resource from, how can we know the the information of the staff? The truth is right there, but you think we need to wait til a news article release? They're probably not interested about it, let it got wrong forever?--Sa Young Sun (talk) 15:39, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

August 2024

Your recent editing history at Your Honor (2024 TV series) 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; read about 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 ^{[𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺]} 09:42, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]