Ïvana

User:Dagoatforuse

Ivana, I don't really understand why you'd go on and warn that user a few times in a row when they're harassing you. Just report to an admin and they'll take care of it. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:54, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@Drmies: Well the first 3 edits were just random vandalism. The 4th was harassment but I wanted to play by the rules and warn them 4 times. I didn't see the last personal attack until that person was blocked. But next time I'll just report them right away. Thank you! - Ïvana (talk) 02:06, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Stop deleting my comments on the talk page.

That is against Wikipedia policy. If you persist, I will report you. 2001:B011:E610:FA1D:E15A:E4EB:7C7E:ADF (talk) 14:44, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Learn how WP:ARBECR works and stop being disruptive. Thanks! - Ïvana (talk) 17:27, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I’m sorry, but I think it’s dishonest and evident of bias that you’re not even willing to seek consensus on the Deif’s talk page. Why are you afraid of open discussion? I actually lost my old password, but I am going to open a new account so I can once again push for accountability and an honest and open dialogue on that page. Wikipedia is not for your individual political bias. Thanks! 2001:B011:E610:FA1D:D95F:8F7A:25E5:B984 (talk) 04:57, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Learn how WP:ARBECR works. Page has been protected now because of your persistent vandalism. Any further disruptions will result in a block. - Ïvana (talk) 00:55, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

You keep linking that, but point to the specific clause in Arbitration that I violated by seeking editor consensus on the article’s talk page. 2001:B011:E610:DB8D:6579:975B:3EBE:B5E2 (talk) 03:23, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests. Extremely easy to understand. WP:BLP is also crystal clear. People are presumed to be living unless a WP:RELIABLE source has confirmed their death; news outlets merely repeating what the IDF states are simply echoing claims without providing independent verification. The burden of proof lies with those making the assertions, not those questioning them. - Ïvana (talk) 04:21, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

So the Israeli government is not a reliable source? Do you hold the American government or other governments to the same standard? The ambiguity of his current status should at least be reflected as it was when he was referred to as “is or was” in the article. 2001:B011:E610:DB8D:21C0:2E05:1A02:7237 (talk) 08:14, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

The Israeli government is a reliable source for their own views and behavior, not when making unverified claims about other parties. And we do hold other governments to the same standard. Unverified claims are not to be taken as truth especially for something as delicate as a BLP. If Hamas confirmed it like they have done with other militants, then it would be a different story. But they haven't, so the burden of proof lies on whoever is claiming Deif is dead. So far no proof has been given, so per our policies he is assumed to be living. And the article talks about this, so there's nothing else we can add at the moment. - Ïvana (talk) 17:33, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

RS

Taylor Swift, SEVENTEEN and Morgan Wallen top IFPI Global Album Charts - IFPI

reliable source for this? 🅶🅰🅼🅾🆆🅴🅱🅱🅴🅳 (talk) 15:49, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

@Gamowebbed: Doesn't say anything about 17 having the best-selling album of all time in SK. - Ïvana (talk) 16:02, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

dab

I was hoping someone would come in and resolve that dab. Is that a well-known term in Indian English? Do we need an article, or a wiktionary entry? Valereee (talk) 22:09, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Well-known...yes. But "clean chit" is not used in formal or legal parlance. It's used colloquially and interchangeably with acquittal or exoneration. — hako9 (talk) 23:43, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Ah, thanks! Valereee (talk) 16:15, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:APO/S

Hey, what exactly is the issue here and here; is it the wiki link to (G)I-dle? RachelTensions (talk) 00:26, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

@RachelTensions: Yes, the descriptor should not include a wikilink. Also piped links should not be used for the subject; the wikilink should be the actual article title. - Ïvana (talk) 00:55, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Coulda just removed the wiki link instead of getting rid of the rest of the edit :) There were no piped links, the wikilinks were Miyeon and Soojin as those are the actual article titles. RachelTensions (talk) 00:59, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Israel-Hamas war

Despite your warning https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israel–Hamas_war&diff=prev&oldid=1248154015 and other editors' concerns, a rogue user has reverted your changes and reinserted the disputed figure given by IDF in the main infobox https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Israel–Hamas_war_infobox&diff=prev&oldid=1248396003 without providing any explanation on the talk page Hu741f4 (talk) 08:22, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

@Hu741f4: Thanks for letting me know and for reverting it too (I was asleep). The WP:ONUS is on them, not us. - Ïvana (talk) 14:11, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Forensic architecture text.

You have misunderstood what you're calling the talk page consensus. It was not proposed to list the publications as part of the article text, but rather to cite those references as inline citations. Please undo or correct your edit, which really should not have been reinstated, even with modification, once challenged for cause. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 13:22, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

We already have an ongoing discussion about this, so I would appreciate it if we could keep the arguments in that thread instead of fragmenting the discussion. Thanks. - Ïvana (talk) 19:44, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

My comment here is not about the talk page issue. It's that you appear to have misunderstood the way we attribute content. Please self-revert. @PhotogenicScientist:. SPECIFICO talk 20:35, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

It seems you haven't checked the edit history because I was reverted hours ago. So I'm back to discussing this on the talk page, as we should. Please limit your comments to that discussion. - Ïvana (talk) 20:48, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Removal of a POV tag in the middle of discussion on Israeli apartheid

In this edit you removed POV tags in the middle of an ongoing discussion regarding neutrality issues in this article. This action is rather disruptive, especially considering that multiple editors have already pointed out the neutrality problems and are in the middle of discussing them, and you have not engaged in the discussion on the talk page at all. Please self-revert. ABHammad (talk) 12:01, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Shouldn't consensus be achieved before adding the tags? I'm not the first person who removed them. The ONUS to get consensus to add new content especially NPOV tags for a contentious topic article is on you, and the ongoing discussion is nowhere near achieving that. You're right in asserting that I didn't participate in the discussion, so I've fixed that. - Ïvana (talk) 13:54, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

No, there is no need for consensus for adding tags. Part of the idea is to indicate that there is an ongoing dispute on this content regarding its neutrality. I'm asking you again to restore them. Thank you. ABHammad (talk) 14:46, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Mmh. Ok, I don't agree, but if this is the way that we are supposed to operate then I'll keep this in mind if I decide to add POV tags in the future. I'll self revert for the sake of avoiding an extra headache since I am already involved in too many discussions. Let's keep talking about it in the talk page then. - Ïvana (talk) 19:03, 8 October 2024 (UTC)