User talk:Mikedesousa
Speedy deletion of AbleStable
A tag has been placed on AbleStable requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for web content.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Fritzpoll (talk) 17:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Conflict of interest
If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article AbleStable, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
- editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
- participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
- linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);
- and you must always:
- avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.
For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest. Thank you. Fritzpoll (talk) 17:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of User:Mikedesousa
A tag has been placed on User:Mikedesousa requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.
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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Cabayi (talk) 20:55, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Deletion explanation
You have e-mailed to ask why I deleted your userpage; I am answering here for reasons of wikipedic openness, and to allow discussion should this be appropriate.
The principal purpose of the userpage in Wikipedia is to allow the editor to express his/her hopes, interests, expectations, ambitions, skills, pst history, etc., in relation to their editing on wikipedia. Your userpage did none of this, and this is the primary reason for the deletion. Furthermore, your page is purely autobiographical, and autobiography here is strongly discouraged; please read WP:AUTOBIOG. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 21:45, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
No. Cabayi (talk) 21:46, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Contested deletion
This page should not be speedily deleted because... I believe it provides balanced, honest, and clear information about myself as a user and contributor of Wikipedia.
Although I do not make regular direct editorial contributions to Wikipedia, I frequently refer to it in my communications with the large community of visitors to my many websites:
www.mikedesousa.com
I may have referenced AbleStable many years ago at Wikipedia, however please note that this particular site (no longer in development) sought to encourage creativity by offering over 500 hundred resources without charge to the Internet community and I'm sure I have not edited that page for very many years. My act of service in creating AbleStable, was I believe in common with the aims of Wikipedia, and was first published in 2002. I have continued to offer my work without charge, and my online publications have no advertising or requests for money of any kind.
As to why I as a Wikipedia user should not be deleted when I appear to have offered relatively little directly to it, please consider this. I visit Wikipedia daily and have done since its first appearance. It has been profoundly important for my creative development. As I read, I take in, and then I give back through the many publications. Consider my work as a mirror of Wikipedia, in a spirit of open, honest, and a genuine desire to make the world a better place. I am at a loss as to why my user page should be deleted...
Kind Regards,
Mike --Mike de Sousa (talk) 21:58, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
- When I hover over your username I see you've made 30 contributions. When I look at your contributions I see just 2 contributions to the wiki. That seems to be the measure of your self promotion, 93%. Anthony's already explained that userpages are for editors of the wiki to provide some background to their wiki activities. You're obviously not here to contribute to the wiki. Cabayi (talk) 22:11, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi Cabayi, with respect, I take strong exception to both your tone and accusation.
I place personal integrity and honesty at the core of my identity and actions, and I suggest you review my work more carefully, and consider your position in light of what I now say:
I have always found the terms and conditions of Wikipedia opaque and confusing. There are numerous, difficult to read pages about what is and is not acceptable when contributing to Wikipedia. You conclude your last comment with the phrase "You're obviously not here to contribute to the wiki". By "to the wiki" I believe you mean " to Wikipedia", however this is not at all clear to me as "wiki" could refer to a wider entity. That is, you may be referring to something I am unaware of. I simply do not know and herein lies the problem. I am someone who tries at all times to be transparent and clear. I am Dyslexic and I find the numerous qualifications and pages for contributors at Wikipedia unfathomable, and I am not alone in this.
It appears that you and Anthony have formed a judgment about my contribution without careful dialog or consideration.
You state that I have attempted to use Wikipedia to promote myself. This is untrue. Searching my name on Wikipedia never produced, and still does not produce, a single result. Not one: Mike de Sousa. From my perspective, I viewed the user page as one that is hidden except for those who contribute or click on a link that refers to a contribution I have made or make to Wikipedia.
That I have made only a few contributions to Wikipedia is not the point (I have made more than two but these have not been accepted - why I do not know as editorial decisions in Wikipedia are far from transparent). The principle of inclusion is not based on the volume of them. Take the writer Nelle Harper Lee, author of To Kill a Mockingbird as an example. She wrote two books. That she only wrote two does not exclude her from the group writers, and yet this is your argument for the deletion of my user page. I am not suggesting my work is as well known nor as significant as Nelle Harper Lee, but I am asserting that the principle of inclusion is not based on the volume of contributions made.
Until my user page was deleted, and as far as I understood, people arrived to it having clicked a tiny reference link to my name as a contributor at Wikipedia. I am however uncertain as to whether this was the case. What I do know is that many from Wikipedia visited online publications like The Rights of Living Things, seemingly as a result of visiting my user page at Wikipedia. Was this not a sign that people found my user page valuable? A user page, as I understand it, details information about a user. It seems to me that both you and Anthony are acting from the premise that I was self promoting, rather than providing information. I strongly refute that position.
As I have indicated, in the past I have attempted to make contributions to Wikipedia, however I have not found the process at all transparent. In part I started to edited my user page to understand how pages at Wikipedia are created and formatted, however as far as I understand, unless I see a clear error or wish to contribute a new article at Wikipedia, I am not to create an article that self promotes. I say once again, I did not, and still do not view my user page at Wikipedia as a context of self promotion. It offered clear, detailed, dispassionate information about myself, and that informs and authenticates any contributions I have made, or will make at Wikipedia. Surely, the more detailed that user page is, the better. I have made a number of edits to my page as this was a page about me, and I therefore held responsibility for it. Surely it was inevitable that I would make far more, not to self promote, but to inform.
I cannot adequately express how frustrating and personally offensive it is to me that you and Anthony have accused me of abusing the terms of Wikipedia. Once again, I refer you to the considerable body of my work, the principles that I adhere to, and my arguments here.
In the very short stub of an article I created on behalf of AbeStable at Wikipedia many, many years ago, I sought to inform people about a website that was full with free information and resources. I accept that as AbleStable is no longer in development, there is a case against its inclusion at Wikipedia, however not for the reasons you state.
It seems clear from your actions and comments that you are sceptical about my intentions, however I urge you to think more carefully about how you make decisions about the deletion of pages at Wikipedia in future. I understand it is unlikely that my user page will ever be reactivated, however I am concerned that both you, Anthony, and others at Wikipedia have a closed view of what defines a user page contribution, and that your actions not only dissuade those who genuinely wish to make the world a better place from contributing, but also undermine Wikipedia's authority as an open and inclusive context.
Kind Regards,
Mike
Addendum 3 April 2018
Further to my response above, I am informing readers of this page that I have published an article on my website detailing issues arising from the deletion of my user page and referring to it at Wikipedia, together with a screenshot of the original undeleted article: