User talk:Ïvana

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)