User talk:CherryPie94

This is CherryPie94's talk page, where you can send her messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2

National varieties of English[edit]

Hello. In a recent edit to the page 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak by country and territory, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, India, or Pakistan use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author of the article used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:39, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Min-ho (actor) and The King: Eternal Monarch[edit]

Hi, I just wanted to drop you a note regarding all the recent disruption at Lee Min-ho (actor) and The King: Eternal Monarch. I filed a sockpuppet investigation against several accounts I suspected were related. A CheckUser found that a single editor was operating 26 sockpuppets, which have all been blocked. I did not expect such a large group, so we'll have to be extra vigilant over these two articles. If you see similar editing behavior from any account henceforth, please feel free to contact me directly (or file another investigation if you're up for it). Thank you. Ə XPLICIT 09:13, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Explicit: Thanks so much. Those edits really did seem weird. I'm glad that we don't have to keep fixing the pages every few hours. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 15:32, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to your note about The King Eternal Monarch[edit]

My apologies for doing that. I noticed that this page presents a very negative view of the topic and was just trying to provide a more balanced presentation. It seems that edits to this page may now be done only by privileged users. May I request for a vandalism-free edit (backed by reliable references) to make on the page?

Current:

Despite hailing as one of the most anticipated series in the first half of 2020 due to its ensemble cast, renowned screenwriter,[10] extensive publicity and more than 30 billion Won (US$25 million) production budget,[8][7] the series received criticisms for its screenplay, direction and editing, leading to lower-than-expected domestic popularity in Korea.[11][12][13] Contrary to that, the series was termed as a "hit Netflix drama" by GMA News Online,[14] and South China Morning Post also mentioned it as a "hit Korean drama series" due to its popularity overseas.[15]

New:

The show garnered high domestic ratings in its first week but was beset by controversies that hit domestic viewers' patriotism and undermined the production. https://www.elle.com.sg/2020/04/22/the-king-eternal-monarch-premiere-records-local-controversy/ http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20200518000644

Thus, despite being one of the most anticipated series in the first half of 2020 due to its ensemble cast, renowned screenwriter,[10] extensive publicity and more than 30 billion Won (US$25 million) production budget,[8][7] the series received criticisms for its screenplay, direction and editing, leading to lower-than-expected domestic popularity in Korea.[11][12][13]

Nevertheless, the series was hailed as a "hit Netflix drama" by GMA News Online [14]. South China Morning Post also mentioned it as a "hit Korean drama series" due to its popularity overseas.[15]

Thanks and regards, Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 19:45, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lizzydarcy2008: Based on the sources, the lower viewership rating did not only come from controversies, they came from the bad production. We should not distorted words that are not from the sources. The current sentence is not negative, it says that although it was criticized, it was popular overseas. If you find critic reviews that favorably review the drama we will add their point. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 19:58, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that the initial ratings were high. It is also true that the controversies hit SK viewers' patriotism. And as noted in http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20200518000644, the controversies "undermined the reputation of the drama". A drama with an undermined reputation becomes a target for criticisms and creates a bandwagon effect.

The current paragraph as it stands now does not mention the controversies, so it also distorted the facts. It has a more negative feel than balanced. The "contrary to that" sentence feels like GMA New Online and South China Morning Post were wrong.

How about this:

The show garnered high domestic ratings in its first week but was beset by controversies that hit domestic viewers' patriotism and undermined the production. https://www.elle.com.sg/2020/04/22/the-king-eternal-monarch-premiere-records-local-controversy/ http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20200518000644

One of the most anticipated series in the first half of 2020 due to its ensemble cast, renowned screenwriter,[10] extensive publicity and more than 30 billion Won (US$25 million) production budget,[8][7] the series received criticisms for its screenplay, direction and editing, leading to lower-than-expected domestic popularity in Korea.[11][12][13]

Despite this, the series was hailed as a "hit Netflix drama" by GMA News Online [14]. South China Morning Post also mentioned it as a "hit Korean drama series" due to its popularity overseas.[15]

Thanks,

Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 20:37, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lizzydarcy2008: "Contrary to that" is talking about the low rating and popularity in Korea. You see it as wrong because you want to promote the series and distort fact. I added the controversy: Despite hailing as one of the most anticipated series in the first half of 2020 due to its ensemble cast, renowned screenwriter,[10] extensive publicity and more than 30 billion Won (US$25 million) production budget,[8][7] the series received criticisms for its screenplay, direction, editing, and various controversy leading to lower-than-expected domestic popularity in Korea. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 20:46, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a promoter, just an admirer of the show that is appalled at the negativity of the page. There is no mention of the effect of the controversies on SK viewers' patriotism and the undermining of the reputation of the show that largely explained the lower-than-expected domestic popularity. The word "contrary" has a negative connotation, making it feel like GMA News Online and South China Morning Post were wrong in hailing its overseas success. Thanks, Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 21:22, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lizzydarcy2008: Did you even bother scrolling down? The controversies are all written in a section down below. The first paragraph should not be filled with everything, it should have a brief summary of the page. You should just accept the fact that the series was not good that is why critics criticized it. We should balance the page but we should not make things up. As I said before, If you find critic reviews that favorably review the drama I will add their point. I Honestly tried looking for positive review to balance the page, but there were none. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 00:50, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw the section on Controversy. However, the paragraphs before the Table of Contents are the most important because a lot of online readers would not scroll down. And that second paragraph is highly negative. It highlights the high production costs of the show that are not as highlighted for other dramas that incurred higher production costs like Arthdal Chronicles. This is why I removed it. It highlights the criticisms and lower-than-expected domestic ratings. You asked me to give positive feedback about the show and I gave such positive feedback about the high initial ratings. The first sentence below aims to explain what triggered the criticisms and lower-than-expected domestic ratings. I added another reference to add a newspaper's comment about the controversies pushing audiences away. Also, why can't we use flixpatrol statistics? I understand that the yearly statistics are not accurate and reliable, but the daily statistics are reliable and would be more accurate than saying "it was termed a hit Netflix series".

Requested Update:

The show garnered high domestic ratings in its first week but was beset by controversies that undermined the production and hit domestic viewers' patriotism, pushing them away.Thus, despite being one of the most anticipated series in the first half of 2020 due to its ensemble cast, renowned screenwriter, extensive publicity and big production budget, the series received criticisms for its screenplay, direction and editing, leading to lower-than-expected domestic popularity in Korea.

Nevertheless, it became popular overseas and was hailed a "hit Netflix drama" by GMA News Online. South China Morning Post also mentioned it as a "hit Korean drama series".

(Or, if daily Flixpatrol statistics are accepted, the second paragraph above may be replaced with the paragraph below)

Thanks,

Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 21:46, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lizzydarcy2008: Again, so what if they are negative? You love the series, good for you, but that doesn't change the fact that the series did not do well, we can't just change and distort facts. Also, flixpatrol is not reliable. I told you to give positive critic reviews, but I'm pretty sure you could not find one as I too looked for them. Please don't bother me anymore. I feel like I keep saying the same point over and over again. Just accept that the show did not do well and lots of critics criticized it. Why are you that upset? Where you paid to advertise it or did you invest in it? CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 11:33, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for disturbing you yet again. But since we have already started discussing this, I figured you would be the best person to conclude discussions about this with. As I had pointed out, the negative discussion about the budget is not mentioned in any other kdramas like Arthdal Chronicles that incurred even bigger budgets. Thus, showing this in The King Eternal Monarch proves that is it being presented more negatively than similar shows.

I did find positive feedbacks such as below, however, since other kdramas also don't reference positive feedbacks, I didn't think them relevant. https://annyeongoppa.com/2020/06/20/why-the-king-eternal-monarch-is-an-immaculate-masterpiece/ https://www.thereviewgeek.com/thekingeternalmonarch-s1review/ https://goggler.my/the-king-eternal-monarch-review/?utm_source=imdb&utm_medium=socmed https://www.jazminemedia.com/2020/06/the-king-eternal-monarch-episode-16-recap-and-ending-explained/ https://www.hellokpop.com/review/k-drama-review-the-king-eternal-monarch/ https://www.hellokpop.com/featured/k-drama-diary-the-king-eternal-monarch/

The show did do well in streaming platforms. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is only showing network ratings which I believe is outmoded. At these times when more and more people are watching TV content through streaming services like Netflix, there should be a way to also show streaming statistics. Showing just the network TV figures does not show the real picture, thus is actually a distortion.

I am not in any way connected with the production or promotion team of The King Eternal Monarch. I am just a viewer who admires it, thus aware of how well received it was internationally and was surprised to see how unfairly negative its Wiki page is.

Regards, Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 06:26, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lizzydarcy2008: Losses not being pointed out in Arthdal Chronicles doesn’t mean you remove facts from here, instead go add the facts to Arthdal Chronicles. As for all the links you provided, they are all unreliable. Again, the only place that says the series is streamed a lot is flixpetrol, which is unreliable. This is my last message, please don’t bother me. I dislike repeating the same thing over and over again just because you can’t accept facts. You loss nothing if critics review it negatively, just move on and look for other series to watch. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk)

I'm sorry, but I'm seeing an injustice here that I cannot ignore. I've heard of this drama being sabotaged and I'm afraid Wikipedia is being used for that purpose. Why is flixpatrol not reliable? They have a disclaimer that their numbers are not to be used as actual viewing or sales figures which I have not done. I'm using their ranking figures which their site is for. I'm also aware they are missing statistics for the start of the year, up to April, I think, which is why I'm referencing daily, not yearly, statistics after April. Nielsen ratings and similar tools to get TV viewing statistics have been criticized for their inaccuracies since day one, so refusing to show Netflix statistics is questionable to say the least.

If I add the same note in Arthdal Chronicles, I will need to research all the other dramas to find out which other ones had high budgets as well, to be fair to both The King Eternal Monarch and Arthdal Chronicles. That would be a full-time job. Is Wikipedia going to fund my time to do that? The other way to establish fairness is to remove the negativity in TKEM that is not in other dramas. Since my attempt to do that had been reverted, I have suggested a compromise that would balance the negativity of that paragraph.

Regards, Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 21:43, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lizzydarcy2008: "Why is flixpatrol not reliable?" Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 297#Is Flix Patrol reliable?

"I'm also aware they are missing statistics for the start of the year, up to April" that is become Netflix added their top ten ranking on April, that is why there is no old data.

"The other way to establish fairness is to remove the negativity in TKEM that is not in other dramas." WP:CENSOR.

You are taking things way personal, making it seem like you are part of the series crew or investors. I'm not going to reply anymore cause you don't seem to read what I wrote, so stop making new headers on my talk page. This is my last message, I don't care. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 23:11, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://mnews.joins.com/article/23808163#home Surozee (talk) 10:38, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Am submitting this for additional information on the king eternal monarch if need be https://mnews.joins.com/article/23808163#home Surozee (talk) 10:46, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Surozee: The article is not even about the series. It is talking about how the digital content industry is driving the South Korean economy with only half a sentence saying the series placed number one on Netflix.

“넷플릭스(Netflix)에서 세계 1위 드라마로 명예를 떨친 '더 킹 : 영원의 군주'”, the sentence claims it was No.1 series of Netflix, but where did they get that info, no news source or data ever said that. It might have been in Korea, which was per flixpetrol for only a few non consecutive days (insignificant and unreliable), but the article did not include proof, images, or explanation for the sources of info.

I am sure you are using google translate cause the article doesn’t say it is forth on YouTube, it is talking about Baby Shark song.

“전 세계 유튜브 동영상 5 위에 달하는 한류 캐릭터‘아기 상어’등이있다.“ I copied the sentence you are talking about, google translate it if you want to see if I’m telling the truth.

Also, you do realize this is MY talk page, not the drama talk page. You want discus a change, do it there, not here. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk)

Oh oh... I get you now... Yeah I intentionally sent it to you.... Is that a crime?... Surozee (talk) 12:33, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I see that my edit on the second paragraph was reversed. I read that you see koreaboo and flixpatrol as unreliable sources. But the dozen of other sources I included are from reliable news organizations, and they are more updated than the ones cited in the existing text. These past few weeks, more comprehensive articles were released on the performance of the drama, thus, I suggest that these be included, if not replace the other sources, in the second paragraph.

Regards, Syntyche S (talk) 15:44, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Syntyche S: "The series is the most-watched Netflix K-drama in the world in 2020,[10] [11][12] [13] as it is the only Korean film to rank in the most prestigious Netflix chart, "World Ranking," which collects and announces the ranking for all 190 countries.[14][15][16] In Hong Kong, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Taiwan, Thailand and Nigeria, it has ranked No. 1 in the weekly TV shows, while it has maintained the top spot as popular content in Japan, India, Vietnam, Chile, and the Dominican Republic.[17][18][19] According to the data of Flixpatrol, the drama has entered the top 10 most popular TV shows in 28 countries,[13] and has been sweeping the top 10 for months." All based on the unreliable flixpterol data, Netflix did not announce that. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 297#Is Flix Patrol reliable? Aslo "which collects and announces the ranking for all 190 countries" is a lie, lots of countries are not measured on flixpetrol. Also "in the most prestigious Netflix chart" is nonsense. What is prestigious about the flixpetrol unreliable chart which was only introduced 4 months ago and the data changes daily. This is not a constant/final version of the end of year stat.

"Its strong popularity in the global OTT market has completely washed away the slump brought about by lackluster domestic ratings, at a time where local viewership is no longer the absolute criterion for a drama and structural changes to the classic ratings survey is needed in view of the rapidly changing media environment.[16][20][21][22] Nevertheless, in the domestic mega OTT platform Wavve, “The King” has maintained its No. 1 spot on the weekly Wavve drama chart for eight consecutive weeks since its first airing.[23][15][18] With the performance of the series, the production company Studio Dragon has achieved its highest overseas sales ever.[24] Even before the airing, the company had already collected 32 billion won in production costs from "The King" and Netflix copyrights.[16] Meanwhile, according to the results of a survey of internet reactions to TV programs in the first half of 2020 conducted by the government agency Korea Communications Commission (KCC), “The King” has been included in the top 10 programs based on online posts, online comments, number of views on related video and news articles.[25]" Already in the Reception no need to include it at the top again. The top is a summary and should not be a copy and paste of other sections. Also the first sentence (changes in ratings) should go into Korean drama#Viewership ratings, not the series's page as it is unrelated. Also "the company had already collected 32 billion won in production costs" is already under the Production section. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 15:49, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, these are not all based on flixpatrol. The roster of countries is based on the Netflix website itself for each said country. The Straits Times article cited in the current version also cites Netflix in the same vein as the other articles I included. By the way, the current source #44 from Wikitree is the one citing flixpatrol as its source.

Given that the rest of the first sentence should go to the Korean drama, the clause on "its popularity on global OTT market washing away the ratings" from the more recent articles of The Korea Times better represent and focus on the drama's performance than the older articles from GMA News online and South China Morning Post, which only mention the drama's performance in passing.

Given that the top is a summary and that it should not be a copy paste of other sections, the statement on the Wavve ranking I added in the Reception page should be moved to the top instead. This is to balance the statement on low terrestrial ratings, as Wavve has more subscribers than Netflix in Korea.

Also, the statement on Studio Dragon should not have been deleted from the top and rather moved to the Reception section.

The article from the news organization Manila Bulletin on the survey results of Korea Communications Commission (legitimate organizations having their own wikipedia pages), should also be retained in the Reception section

Regards,

Syntyche S (talk) 16:45, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Syntyche S: Can you confirm where they got those number if not from flixpatrol? "By the way, the current source #44 from Wikitree is the one citing flixpatrol as its source." I will remove that, thanks.

"its popularity on global OTT market washing away the ratings" that still doesn't negate that it got bad viewership in Korea and it like you are trying to dismiss it's failure in Korea. There series hardly trended as #1 in Korea while airing on Netflix. If you want to use the OTT market rating (flixpetrol) then TKEM is not even #1 in Korean of 2020, while Hospital Playlist is. You should present both sides and not downplay and discredit the ratings just because you don't like them.

"The article from the news organization Manila Bulletin on the survey results of Korea Communications Commission (legitimate organizations having their own wikipedia pages), should also be retained in the Reception section" That sentence is still there, I just merged it into the praise paragraph. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 17:00, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At cherrypie there is still some edits that needs to be done and IMO I don't find cherrypie to be a relieble person to be editting this wiki page as I personally belief this person is a troll. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trust12345 (talk • contribs) 15:29, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CherryPie94: Can you confirm where they got those number if not from flixpatrol? Hello. I've already confirmed that the Top 10 ranking in various countries did not come from flixpatrol, but came from the Netflix app and website itself. Netflix has rolled out the Top 10 feature in its website and app which enables its subscribers to see what is most popular on Netflix in their country https://media.netflix.com/en/company-blog/see-whats-popular-on-netflix. Each of the countries I enumerated had a local legitimate source mentioning the series was included in the Top 10 of each respective country, and did not even mention flixpatrol.Syntyche S (talk) 01:24, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Syntyche S: even if it is from Netflix, it cannot be used as it is a Wikipedia: Primary source. It is a Netflix original and Netflix could easily up the numbers, that is why primary sources can’t be used. Also, it is not an achievement cause no one actually knows how Netflix measures this and we don’t know the number of subscribers in each of those countries (Maybe the country has very little subscribers compared to others countries, causing skewed numbers). When other western Netflix original series add it, then we can discuss it here. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 10:25, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CherryPie94: Apparently, 113-year-old media company, Variety (magazine), has partnered with streaming analytics firm FlixPatrol to highlight the most popular shows on Netflix ^[1] ^[2]. Even Michael M. Scott, director of the Netflix original film Dangerous Lies (2020 film), told Tomas Vyskocil, founder and CEO of FlixPatrol, that he loved what FlixPatrol was doing, and even asked if he could “reverse engineer” how many viewers had watched Dangerous Lies using FlixPatrol’s algorithms. ^[3] Meanwhile, the Wikipedia page of Eurovision Song Contest: The Story of Fire Saga, cites FlixPatrol as the source of its ranking in multiple regions.

FlixPatrol is an analytics streaming company which considers in its algorithm the ranking and subscriber numbers of different streaming platforms, including the “country power” of each region. ^[3] Considering the real-time availability of streaming data, streaming platforms and analytics streaming companies are able to update its charts on a daily basis.

But unlike TV ratings, which provide transparency about TV performance across broadcast networks, there is no universal streaming metric yet that is calculated by an objective third party. Nevertheless, analytics companies are developing their own unique approaches to calculate the popularity of a show or movie as well as analyzing the people watching them. ^[3] Until an industry standard is created to measure the success of a show or movie, the work of analytics companies such as FlixPatrol is the next best secondary source as to the gauge of a show's popularity. Syntyche S (talk) 14:45, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Syntyche S: Deemed unreliable here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 297#Is Flix Patrol reliable? CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 14:48, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CherryPie94: "Personally, I see Flix Patrol as not an official chart..." I'm sorry to say, but what's written there are only based on opinions. What I cited here are based on more recent facts from sources you can check. Flixpatrol having a partnership with the 113-year-old media company Variety (magazine) says enough about its reliability.

"...unreliable as the data fluctuates based on what is being watched now..." This is the very nature of streaming shows. Considering the real-time availability of streaming data, streaming platforms and analytics streaming companies are able to update its charts on a daily basis.

"...can't see any evidence that it is reliable such as a list of staff or information on who runs the site - it seems to be faceless." FlixPatrol has a founder and CEO, Tomas Vyskocil, who Dangerous Lies (2020 film) director Michael M. Scott even asked to do some “reverse engineering” to determine the number of viewers of his film.

"I'd say its unreliable, plus it's also problematic as it updates its lists every day..."::: Again, based on an opinion, and again, this is the very nature of streaming services.

FlixPatrol was decided to be unreliable here solely because of "The King," when it is used as reference by other shows and organizations. Measuring streaming shows is an emerging industry, and so it is best to keep up with recent developments on such. Syntyche S (talk) 01:23, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://variety.com/vip/data-netflixs-most-popular-domestic-shows-in-july-1234724132/
^ https://twitter.com/flixpatrol/status/1290359160383721474?s=20
^ ^a ^b ^c https://www.fastcompany.com/90536486/why-disney-hasnt-shared-how-many-people-watched-hamilton-streaming-wars-numbers

Orphaned non-free image File:CJ HealthCare logo.png[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:CJ HealthCare logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:02, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More changes to The King Eternal Monarch[edit]

Hi, I made some more changes to The Reception section of The King Eternal Monarch for the following reasons: I re-removed redundant mention about struggling with ratings. This one section mentioned it twice, making it appear Wikipedia is ramming that fact down readers' throats. In any case, Korean industry insiders have already conceded that local viewership is not anymore a key metric in evaluating the success of Kdramas so talking too much about ratings here when there is already a Ratings section is redundant and excessive. I also re-arranged paragraphs to have a more chronological and logical flow. The articles about criticisms were published before those that praised it, thus I placed the former before the latter. This also makes sense logically, underscoring the fact that the rating struggle was caused by bad press but the drama was able to prevail in the end. The IBTimes article about the drama's performance was re-added. The information in that IBTimes report is consistent with that of the Global Hallyu Issue Magazine. Besides, IBTimes' criticism was deemed acceptable in the second paragraph of this section.

Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 05:44, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lizzydarcy2008: I'm sorry but all you did is remove an negative statements and only kept the positive. Wikipedia is neutral and is not a fan page (go to twitter and other fan pages if you only want positive info). I know you are a huge fan of the series but that doesn't mean you can remove all negative statements and keep only the positive statements that fit your narrative.

"I re-removed redundant mention about struggling with ratings. This one section mentioned it twice, making it appear Wikipedia is ramming that fact down readers' throats." and then you go and again copy the entire praise from the Reception section to the top without rephrasing, showing you are biased toward positive info only. All the criticism was removed and only positive comments were added, which is wrong.

"In any case, Korean industry insiders have already conceded that local viewership is not anymore a key metric in evaluating the success of Kdramas so talking too much about ratings here when there is already a Ratings section is redundant and excessive." As I said, this is WP:Original research and it is not for me and you to determine, we just have to provide the info of both sides.

"I also re-arranged paragraphs to have a more chronological and logical flow. The articles about criticisms were published before those that praised it, thus I placed the former before the latter. This also makes sense logically, underscoring the fact that the rating struggle was caused by bad press but the drama was able to prevail in the end." You only separated paragraphs making multiple sentences on each line, which is wrong. It doesn't not have to be chronological, there is no dates or timelines for it to need to be chronological. It should flow better and not be cut to multiple sentences on different line. Also, you are using your opinion too much (WP:Original research) by saying "underscoring the fact that the rating struggle was caused by bad press but the drama was able to prevail in the end." The series was still a failure to critics and it was not bad press that made the drama have low viewership. Critics criticized a lot of aspect such as directing and the screenwriting, but you keep removing that and attempt to write that only controversy and bad press caused it to loss viewership which is your opinion that is not supported by any news articles. See other criticisms that came after the series's end: https://www.news1.kr/articles/?3964103 and https://www.yna.co.kr/view/AKR20200611080700005?input=1195m It is not bad press, it is genuine criticisms from real critics. There are tons of articles about it, but you want to keep only the positive.

"The information in that IBTimes report is consistent with that of the Global Hallyu Issue Magazine." the info came from flixpetrol, which should not be allowed. I did not look at Global Hallyu Issue Magazine, but if the info is from flixpetrol, it needs to be removed. Edit: I looked at Global Hallyu Issue Magazine and under the graphs you refer to, they were citing Netflix which never released the official numbers and it is safe to say they got those from flixpetrol thinking it is official number. Flixpetrol claims "Ranking points are not associated with the streaming platforms and they do not represent the actual numbers of viewings or sales." Moreover, the series is not even in the top 10 anymore on flixpetrol and it is not trending now except #10 in Malaysia, showing how unreliable that website it as the data changes daily. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 12:02, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of CJ HealthCare[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on CJ HealthCare, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Randykitty (talk) 15:17, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:CJ HealthCare logo.png[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:CJ HealthCare logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:36, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have a doubt[edit]

Is Good Data ranking for kdramas a reliable source? I was going through It's Okay to Not Be Okay and the reception section seems to use sources which I'm not sure if they're reliable or not. Could I use some help? Kmtn1025 (talk) 15:22, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kmtn1025: I'm not sure, but it seems like they rank dramas only, not variety shows or other programs, by their weekly TV viewership. You can ask here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea/Reliable sources. I could help if you want with the page. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 15:30, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I could use some help. Kmtn1025 (talk) 15:55, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kmtn1025: I did some fixing, but will come back later and properly work on it. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 15:57, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay Kmtn1025 (talk) 15:58, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kmtn1025: Our changes might have merged, so if you see any mistakes I made or things that need to be removed, please feel free to fix/remove it. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 16:08, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Thanks for helping. Kmtn1025 (talk) 19:06, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August 2020[edit]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to The King: Eternal Monarch, did not appear constructive. Please do not edit the article while moderated discussion is in progress. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:13, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

South Korea viewers per episode (millions)[edit]

Hi, thanks for adding South Korea viewers per episode (millions) charts in a few South Korean TV Series page like It's Okay To not Be okay, Hospital Playlist, Crash Landing On You. I really curious is there charts data taken form AGB Nielsen website too? cause i never met in the AGB Nielsen website mentioned about viewers amont per episode in millions. If you are pleased, maybe I can help to add the charts on other South Korean TV series pages too like The World of the Married (ratings presentation format in this page made like a western series tv rating presentation where Stranger South Korean TV series is also has ratings presentation format like this so i'm not sure if there won't be any contradiction later when it comes to inserting a chart there actually), Sky Castle, etc. Thanks before. Michaelelijahtanuwijaya (talk) 08:19, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Michaelelijahtanuwijaya: Yes, the numbers are taken directly from Nielsen's website. If you check the source I used, you will see 2 tables, the left is for the average % and the right is the number of viewers. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 09:07, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

update: I checked the Nielsen's website and the number of viewers per episode was only added starting January 2017. They did not measure it prior to that. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 22:11, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CherryPie94: ok thanks for the information and update. I already see it maybe you mean January 2018 not January 2017. I just try put the chart on Familiar Wife & My Mister page. I will add the chart on other South Korean TV series pages if the broadcast start from January 2018. Thanks before. Michaelelijahtanuwijaya (talk) 04:34, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Michaelelijahtanuwijaya:, there is no need for different colors on each page, there is now a default color so use it. I saw many different editors keep changing the colors to the one they prefer, so I asked for a defult color from the one who made the template and now we have one. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 11:36, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CherryPie94: Oh okay if there's default color now. I use different color for different TV series to differ one TV series from other TV series. But if there's default color it's okay. I think Seokgjin must know about this too. Thanks for the information. Michaelelijahtanuwijaya (talk) 11:47, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seokgjin, please read the above. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 12:57, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CherryPie94: Noted. - Seokgjin (talk) 13:11, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michaelelijahtanuwijaya and Seokgjin, do this if you have a long drama and the table becomes long When the Camellia Blooms#Viewership. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 14:06, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CherryPie94: Ok, i already did it on The Fiery Priest#Viewership & Children of Nobody#Ratings. Michaelelijahtanuwijaya (talk) 14:08, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michaelelijahtanuwijaya, you can split it to two parts here Children of Nobody#Viewership. 16 episodes each, no need for 4 parts. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 14:13, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CherryPie94: Ok, i already split Children of Nobody#Ratings in two parts too. Michaelelijahtanuwijaya (talk) 14:08, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CherryPie94 & Seokgjin i see the viewers amount on Hyena (TV series)#Ratings & Dr. Romantic 2#Viewership is 16 parts not 32 parts but when i see AGB Nielsen website the viewers amount is split in 2 numbers too so what i miss something to find the viewers amount in 1 numbers? Thanks before. Michaelelijahtanuwijaya (talk) 14:40, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michaelelijahtanuwijaya, it means the highest number was taken, instead of each parts’ number. That is okay, too. If the show is labeled 16 episodes with 2 parts, then use the highest number between the parts that aired that day. But if it is labeled 32 episodes, then use numbers from both parts. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 15:00, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CherryPie94: Ok, thanks for the information. Michaelelijahtanuwijaya (talk) 09:24, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CherryPie94 & Seokgjin i see someone created a new page Stranger 2. Is this new page creation really necessary? And there is something wrong with the viewers amount graph code on that page because they made it in such a hurry that quite a number of mistakes happened. Michaelelijahtanuwijaya (talk) 14:40, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CherryPie94 like Seokgjin i confuse too about the table format from the text "in table above" or when the text below is part of the table cause user Marchrain13 always change the format (mostly delete colspan) in some Korean drama pages and said it "fix typo" without discussion with other editors seems like format just follow what he / she like? Michaelelijahtanuwijaya (talk) 07:26, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michaelelijahtanuwijaya, if you are going for proper tables, the text should be part of the table either on top or under it as it is a legend, see Image. The red/blue number explanation is only relevant to the table and should be part of it as a legend, just like all images on Wikipedia and other tables, see:Template:COVID-19 pandemic data. Marchrain13, please see this. Just because it is being done wrong on the Korean pages, it doesn’t mean we can’t fix that now. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 09:29, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We can go for this also, using caption: CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 09:43, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Average TV viewership ratings
Ep.	Part	Original broadcast date	Average audience share
			Nielsen		TNmS
			Nationwide	Seoul	Nationwide
1	1	April 17, 2020	10.1% (7th)	11.4% (5th)	9.2% (12th)
1	2	April 17, 2020	11.4% (4th)	12.9% (4th)	9.9% (7th)
Average			7.7%	8.4%	—

Or move it the top:

Average TV viewership ratings
Ep.	Part	Original broadcast date	Average audience share
The blue numbers represent the lowest ratings and the red numbers represent the highest ratings NR denotes that the series did not rank in the top 20 daily programs on that date. N/A denotes that the rating is not known.
			Nielsen		TNmS
			Nationwide	Seoul	Nationwide
1	1	April 17, 2020	10.1% (7th)	11.4% (5th)	9.2% (12th)
1	2	April 17, 2020	11.4% (4th)	12.9% (4th)	9.9% (7th)
Average			7.7%	8.4%	—

@CherryPie94: Ok, i already did with the format the text be part of the table at the bottom as a legend on some Korean drama pages but changed cause "fixed typo". Michaelelijahtanuwijaya (talk) 10:39, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is the format i already did:

Average TV viewership ratings
Ep.	Part	Original broadcast date	Average audience share
			Nielsen		TNmS
			Nationwide	Seoul	Nationwide
1	1	April 17, 2020	10.1% (7th)	11.4% (5th)	9.2% (12th)
1	2	April 17, 2020	11.4% (4th)	12.9% (4th)	9.9% (7th)
Average			7.7%	8.4%	—
The blue numbers represent the lowest ratings and the red numbers represent the highest ratings NR denotes that the series did not rank in the top 20 daily programs on that date. N/A denotes that the rating is not known.

@CherryPie94: I'm changing my edits back to have "proper" tables, but I don't think we should use the < br > feature otherwise it doesn't look right on some devices (such as smartphones). - Seokgjin (talk) 12:08, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CherryPie94 & Michaelelijahtanuwijaya, I suggest we add ;max-width:500px; like I just did for The Good Detective#Ratings to solve the < br > problem. Of course we can increase or decrease the number of pixels depending on the table (some have titles, some have TNmS and Seoul ratings, some only have nationwide ratings, etc.). What do you think? - Seokgjin (talk) 06:26, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Seokgjin: i'm okay with this format. How about you, CherryPie94? Michaelelijahtanuwijaya (talk) 06:46, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michaelelijahtanuwijaya and Seokgjin, I don't mind it. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 20:38, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rickyurs and Muatsem90, just for your information CherryPie94 already asked for a default color from the one who made the template before so i made changes for the viewers amount graph color on No Matter What page and Miss Monte-Cristo page. Hopefully, it can explain the changes i made on that both page. Michaelelijahtanuwijaya (talk) 02:25, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:The King: Eternal Monarch[edit]

I think the discussion on that talk page should end because it is too long and takes too much time. I was a little annoyed that I had already voted and i kept mentioned in discussions. Can it just end because the results of the survey also show who the winner is. because in my opinion if it is left uncovered as we see it will not seem finished. Michaelelijahtanuwijaya (talk) 06:28, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michaelelijahtanuwijaya, it certainly can be ended per WP:RFCCLOSE but we need an uninvolved editor to post a formal closing summary of the discussion as the vote result has already been reached. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 09:22, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:CherryPie94 I already request closure by posting at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. But the RFC hasn't run for thirty days. I didn't read about 30 days. It's my fault. Michaelelijahtanuwijaya (talk) 01:09, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:33, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request for review[edit]

Hi CherryPie94, I recently tried to improve two pages:

1. Worst Friends

2. Jungle Fish

I would like to request you to check these pages if everything is right or if changes are needed. Although I have been cautious and alert there are chances of mistakes. Please inform me anything that you wish. Thank you. Revolutionery (talk) 12:45, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Revolutionery, For Worst Friends, the cast section needs more sources. As for the second one, I edited the lead. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 05:22, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CherryPie94, Thank you for taking time out. I will see for the sources regarding Worst Friends. Revolutionery (talk) 09:05, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

cHelp ==

Can you please help me on my talk page specifically on this request. Thanks. KRtau16 (talk) 15:55, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:SBS Plus logo.png[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:SBS Plus logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:56, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of wax figures of Lee Min-ho displayed at various places for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of wax figures of Lee Min-ho displayed at various places is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of wax figures of Lee Min-ho displayed at various places until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

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.

Your participation would be significant as you have edited Lee Min-ho's page before. Thank you. -ink&fables «talk» 12:28, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Korean Hostel in Spain[edit]

CherryPie94 & Seokgjin i add viewers amount graph on Korean Hostel in Spain page. But cause infobox size so wide it make so much blank space between "Ratings" word and viewer amount graph. Can you help? For now, i split viewership and ratings in 2 section. Thanks before for your help. Michaelelijahtanuwijaya (talk) 07:29, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Michaelelijahtanuwijaya: It doesn't have to be visually pleasing now. When you add more text to the page, the issue would resolve itself. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 09:01, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CherryPie94: Oh i see you already fix the problem. Thanks a lot for your help. Michaelelijahtanuwijaya (talk) 09:10, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message[edit]

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) 02:35, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom (South Korean TV series)[edit]

Budget 35 billion W Source: namu wiki korea 🇰🇷 Source | https://namu.wiki/w/%ED%82%B9%EB%8D%A4(%EB%93%9C%EB%9D%BC%EB%A7%88) Muatsem90 (talk) 14:19, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Muatsem90: Namu can't be used as a source since it is unreliable. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 15:26, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Default Color For The Template Used In The Penthouse: War In Life Page[edit]

Hi CherryPie94, i see on The Penthouse: War in Life page there is different colors used for the graphs and i already changed that but reverted. Before i just want to ask you what default color for season 3 but seems there already user didn't want colors to be changed. Michaelelijahtanuwijaya (talk) 08:12, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Michaelelijahtanuwijaya: I'm not sure about the default colors for other seasons (I know there is one for season 1, not sure if there are colors for the other seasons), you can see what is used here: Template:Television ratings graph CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 09:37, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@CherryPie94: ok thanks for the information. (talk) 09:05, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jung In case[edit]

i added Jung-in case by --Sunuraju (talk) 05:50, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sunuraju: why are you telling me that? I never worked on the page, I don't know you, and know nothing about the page on Wikipedia. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 12:54, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

well because i added page after i sent you and do you heard jung in's case when 16 month old toddler who died after 10 months of abuse by hands of adoptive parents and police's failure to noticed the report it caused in outrage in South Korea and celebrities include Jimin of BTS, i decide added this wiki page ,sorry about my grammar just learn this by --Sunuraju (talk) 04:53, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Studio Dragon logo.png[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Studio Dragon logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -ink&fables «talk» 05:14, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA for Goo Hara?[edit]

Hi, I intend to take the article nominate for Good Article status, for the very least to have a DYK on the main page, hopefully by her anniversary or birthday. Being the next editor with with significant authorship according to xtools, I would like to invite you to assist through the nomination process. Let me know your thoughts about this. Thanks! – robertsky (talk) 04:20, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Robertsky: Sure, you can nominate it if you want. I might help find sources if there are any missing or if there is a need to expand on something, though I can't be a reviewer due to WP:GAN/I#R2. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 13:50, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely, we are on the same page for this. I have nominated the article. Let's see how it goes. – robertsky (talk) 13:58, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message[edit]

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) 00:35, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Partners for Justice poster.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Partners for Justice poster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:34, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:KeyEast logo.png[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:KeyEast logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:38, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Main title card for Pachinko.png[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Main title card for Pachinko.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:45, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Laylat al-Raghaib[edit]

Greetings, before ongoing on the edit-war, let's solve the dispute on the talkpage first. Usually, the edits which change the topic, unless they are clearly false, should be justified first. YOU may also remember WP:EP, before engaging in this dispute. Maybe we should also talk about WP:OR again. If this edit war continues, and my objections are further ignored, I won't resitate to consult an admin regarding that matter. It is fine to have a deviant opinnion, but keeping on with edits while no resolution has been made and no conensus reached, is bad style. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 17:38, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion[edit]

Hi CherryPie94, and thanks for seeking out a third opinion for Laylat al-Raghaib. I removed/decline your request, as we customarily remove them after six days pass without a volunteer accepting the case. For this listing, it was also not clear which talk page section the opinion was requested for, and the most likely candidate appears to have three people involved already. If local discussion can't result in consensus, and there's a dispute that only two editors are participating in, please feel free to post at WP:3O again. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:13, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message[edit]

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) 01:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Naver title[edit]

Template:Naver title has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 13:59, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Hessa (name)[edit]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Hessa (name), may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 20:42, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message[edit]

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) 00:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Someday (TV series)[edit]

The article Someday (TV series) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:NTV and WP:GNG. Tagged for notability since 2017

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. DonaldD23 talk to me 23:13, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.

DePD. I added sources. Best. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:18, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttps://variety.com/vip/data-netflixs-most-popular-domestic-shows-in-july-1234724132/

[2] ttps://twitter.com/flixpatrol/status/1290359160383721474?s=20

[fast-3] ttps://www.fastcompany.com/90536486/why-disney-hasnt-shared-how-many-people-watched-hamilton-streaming-wars-numbers

[1]

[2]

[3]