Un assiolo

Welcome!

Hi Un assiolo, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. Our intro page provides helpful information for new users—please check it out! If you have any questions, you can get help from experienced editors at the Teahouse.

Have you edited here on Wikipedia in the past using a different username or account? You seem to have learned very quickly. Happy editing! Netherzone (talk) 17:44, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@Netherzone: I had a different account which I abandoned over a year ago. (There were no conflicts, restrictions, bans, etc.) In the meantime I also edited as an unregistered user for a bit, before creating this account. I believe all of this is acceptable per Wikipedia:Clean start. --Un assiolo (talk) 18:02, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for such a quick reply, and welcome back. Netherzone (talk) 18:14, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Page protection requests

Please don't make protection request reports for cases of simple vandalism that can be handled via a block; see our protection policy. We only protect pages for vandalism if the vandalism can't be easily handled via warnings and blocks. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:52, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Reply

Thanks for message. I'm not sure what your interest in Kim Tschang-Yeul is, since as far as I can see you have never edited it. If you have a conflict of interest regarding this article you must declare it.

I did read the talk page. There is speculation there that the apparently copied page was copied from here, but nothing to support that, so I think the deletion is justified, but in any case the article is unsatisfactory. It was the G12 SD tag that attracted my attention, but G11 advertising would also have been appropriate.

When one writes about a person, they must provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that they meet the notability guidelines. Sources that are not acceptable include those linked to the person or an associated organisation, press releases, YouTube, IMDB, social media and other sites that can be self-edited, blogs, websites of unknown or non-reliable provenance, and sites that are just reporting what the person claims or interviewing them. Note that references should be in-line so we can tell what fact each is supporting, and should not be bare urls. Most of the text was completely unsourced, and the few refs that were there were mostly either unsuitable, like YouTube, non-refs like "Ronny Cohen: Tschang Yeul Kim" or don't say what they are supposed to be verifying. For example the source for the highest honor bestowed upon a living Korean artist. doesn't say anything of the kind. Basically, the vast majority of the text is completely unverified.

Articles must be written in a non-promotional tone. They must be neutral and encyclopaedic, with verifiable facts, not opinions or reviews. Unsourced claims presented as fact include; one of the most influential figures in modern Korean art history... his own unique style of painting... With time, the liquid abstract forms transformed into spherical, transparent, "hyperreal" 'water drops'... Kim’s water drop paintings speak a language that amalgamates the discourses around photorealism and abstract expressionism, situated in an ambiguous space between reality and the abstract... the highest honor bestowed upon a living Korean artist... Kim is considered the artist that inspired monochrome painting in Korea, as well as being one of the most influential Korean masters in contemporary art in the West... he was awarded with the Commandeur medal, the highest honor of the Ordre des Arts et des Lettres... and so on. Even if it was referenced, it's a mishmash of personal opinions, personal reviews and (unsourced) supposed quotes from the artist, who is not an independent third-party source.

He's clearly notable, but this isn't an encyclopaedia article. At best it's a fan page, at worse there is considerable COI editing here. An article a quarter of the length with proper references and real facts is what we need, not unsourced opinions. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:44, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@Jimfbleak: I have no COI. (No offence, I understand your concern.) I found the page by looking at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion.

If I recall correctly, a user wrote on the talk page that they had contacted the website host and were waiting for a reply as to whether the content was copied from Wikipedia. I think it would appropriate to see what the reply is first.

Since you agree that the artist is notable, I suggest that the article be restored. As I said on your talk page, if the copyright infringement is a concern, only the offending revisions should be deleted, and the article should be rolled back to the last acceptable version. That version would probably be a stub, but I don't think it would meet any criteria for speedy deletion. --Un assiolo (talk) 16:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I'll see if there are any clean versions, but it won't be today Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:58, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@Jimfbleak: Thank you. Also, please check whether the user who was contacting the website received a reply. Thanks. --Un assiolo (talk) 17:17, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Gagan Gupta article Deletion/undeletion

Hello Un assiolo. Thanks for your support on the article Gagan Gupta. As I'm not fully used to english community functionning, I didn't understood what the next step was. As the article has been undeleted, should the text be restored waiting for the Drv ? Regards, Rastapeuplulos (talk) 14:42, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

@Rastapeuplulos: This is actually my first participating in a deletion review, too. Having read Wikipedia:Deletion review#Instructions, my understanding is that the text should not be restored at Gagan Gupta for now. The temporary undeletion was performed so that non-admins can see the article's history to discuss its contents. The result of the deletion review discussion will probably be a consensus to restore the article, or no consensus – in which case, since the article was speedily deleted instead of going through WP:AFD, it will be restored, and an AfD discussion will be required if others still think it should be deleted. In other words, don't change the main article until the deletion review discussion is over (seven days after it was started). If you want to continue editing the article, you should create a userspace subpage (eg. User:Rastapeuplulos/Gagan Gupta), and copy the last version of the article there (be sure to remove the speedy deletion tag). Once the deletion discussion is over, you may restore the article. --Un assiolo (talk) 18:25, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

@Un assiolo: Thank you, its understood. Rastapeuplulos (talk) 18:29, 17 January 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) 01:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

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

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

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

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

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:01, 28 November 2023 (UTC)