User talk:Kriegaex

Your submission at Articles for creation: Alexander Kriegisch (March 19)
 Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/New_question&withJS=MediaWiki:AFCHD-wizard.js&page=Draft:Alexander_Kriegisch Articles for creation help desk] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by Curb Safe Charmer was: This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia.

Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 13:34, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Alexander Kriegisch


A tag has been placed on Draft:Alexander Kriegisch, 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 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. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 13:34, 19 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I wrote about myself, but with full disclosure and only information of public interest. I cannot point to the article text anymore, because it has been deleted, which is a shame, because I wanted to explain why it was relevant. As a project lead of the Eclipse AspectJ OSS project, my name is being mentioned in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AspectJ#History_and_contributors, just like the names of my predecessors in the same role. for them, similar personal pages exist:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mik_Kersten
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Hugunin
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Kiczales
 * I modeled my own entry according to their examples. Mentioning my work and linking to my own homepage is normal, the info box for Gregor does, too, for example.
 * @Curb Safe Charmer, can you please advise me about what you think I did wrong and how to improve it? I am totally unexperienced at Wikipedia, I have to admit. But I was asked by users why the Wikipedia entries for AspectJ was so outdates, which is why I updated parts of it lately. They also said, my name and an entry for it as a well-known open source developer ought to be in Wikipedia. Even though it felt weird to write about myself, I follow the opinion of others, that nobody else can describe me better than I, so I agreed to do it, even though it might not be the humblest thing to do. Kriegaex (talk) 14:00, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Welcome to Wikipedia. I suggest you read Autobiography which explains why editors are strongly discouraged from writing autobiographies. Wikipedia articles will be about subjects that have already been written about in depth by other independent published sources. Therefore, for someone to write an article about you, they should reference those sources. Things you have written, or interviews with you, don't help establish notability.
 * If updating the AspectJ article you should also read WP:COI, make the necessary declarations and in most cases make WP:EDITREQUESTs rather than edit the article directly. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * My article is about myself, discouraged or not, true. But it is not unheard of, and my article is full of references to sources not under my control or authorship. That should lend credibility to what I was writing. Maybe you want to re-evaluate the article. In which way is it worse than the other three I mentioned above? Kriegaex (talk) 14:21, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It sounds like you are determined to write your autobiography. It is not enough that the draft is full of references to sources not under your control or authorship. Firstly, you need to add citations that allow the reader to verify what you write, so you should start by reviewing the published sources you have available and base your draft only on what is verifiable - see WP:V. Secondly, you will need at least three of those sources to show that people unconnected to you have written WP:SECONDARY, WP:INDEPTH coverage about your life and work. Do not base your attempt on any of the three other articles you referred to - they wouldn't pass muster if created today. Indeed, the Mik Kersten biography was considered for deletion. Your draft was actually deleted because it was unambiguous advertising or promotion, which Wikipedia does not allow. Your draft must be balanced and written in a neutral tone of voice, and not advertise or promote the things you do. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:31, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh, so the 90 minutes I spent on trying to write the article were basically a waste of time (which is, of course, not your fault), because I assumed that the other three were good enough for precedents. Thanks for your insights in this matter. If the other articles would not pass the review, I understand that mine does not either. Good for my peers, then, that their articles are older. Bad luck for me.
 * Anyway, I simply followed up on requests from Aspectj users. My ego does not depend on reading my own bio in Wikipedia, even though of course I am not without vanity, like most of us. I think, I shall refrain from further contributing to Wikipedia, and focus on doing voluntary community work elsewhere, e.g. Stack Overflow where I have literally written hundreds of accepted answers.
 * Thanks, @Curb Safe Charmer, for your patience and counsel. Wikipedia can be happy to have diuligent contributrors like you. Kriegaex (talk) 14:50, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Curb Safe Charmer, one last request: Is there any way I can get hold of my article draft, so I do not lose the text and references I gathered for it? I might be able to refactor it for publishing elsewhere. Kriegaex (talk) 14:53, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * As the deleting admin, are you able to restore / userfy Draft:Alexander Kriegisch for ? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks Curb Safe Charmer, I note that there is more self-promotion on the user page, definitely not permitted. Despite what the user claims, the references in the autobiograpghy were mainly not WP:RS. I'll email the code later though Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:26, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I apologise for having violated whichever rules on my user page. If mentioning where I work and what I do in my day-time job (like many others did before me) is defined as forbidden seld-promotion, I am sorry. On most social platforms I am active on, this is normal. When writing the article about myself, I had read before that the user page ought to contain clear information permitting other users to see how the author might be affiliated or in a conflict of interest with the articles written. This is why I created a user page in the first place. Before, I did not even have one. It is really difficult to understand how to do things correctly here on Wikipedia. I did not violate any rules on purpose. I can only tell you what effect this kind of merciless censorship (as opposed to hints how to improve an existing post) has: It is disheartening and makes the community Wikipedia thrives on weaker, because first-time contributors like me might decide to just give up. Speaking for myself, I am definitely feeling humbled to an extent that stops me from ever contributing here again anything beyond adding a link or a bit of content to existing articles or fixing typos. Contributing anything substantial as a layperson seems to be a science of its own right. Kriegaex (talk) 16:47, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I understand your reaction and I am sorry you feel that way. Wikipedia is a community of volunteers trying to build the best encyclopedia. We never practice censorship, but we do have criteria for what topics should have an article about them and which shouldn't. Your draft - as it was presented for review - read as a 'profile' like you might have on LinkedIn or other sites, not as an encyclopedia article, hence it was deleted. We would love for you to stick around and contribute to other articles. Yes, there are policies and guidelines, and editors are on the whole supportive of newcomers. Creating a brand new article is hard do to especially as your first edits, so we encourage newbies to cut their teeth improving existing articles first before they move on to creating new ones, and, as I pointed out, creating autobiographies is strongly discouraged, so pressing on regardless is likely to result in feedback that is less encouraging than normal. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 20:27, 19 March 2024 (UTC)