User talk:Michael Hones

Michael Hones (talk) 08:42, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Michael Hones/sandbox Luke Tobin


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. A tag has been placed on User:Michael Hones/sandbox Luke Tobin 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, 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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 14:43, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Michael Hones/sandbox/Luke Tobin


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. A tag has been placed on User:Michael Hones/sandbox/Luke Tobin 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, 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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 15:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Why are you placing this tag on my sandbox this is not an active page this is under construction please leave my project alone this will never hurt main space Michael Hones (talk) 15:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * do you have personal issues with me? Please not place the tags again and again these are not posted on main space Michael Hones (talk) 15:56, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Welcome!
Hello, Michael Hones, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page User:Michael Hones/sandbox Luke Tobin did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to  The Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 15:41, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

June 2024


Hello, Michael Hones. Thank you for helping to build Wikipedia-- the world's largest free content encyclopedia. I'm sorry, but a page you created User:Michael Hones/sandbox Luke Tobin has been deleted as meeting one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia-- subjects of articles must meet notability guidelines with reliable sources which are unconnected with the subject  and which provide verifiable information. Someone unconnected with the subject needs to have written a great deal about the subject. Please see WP:CORP for subjects that are groups or companies or organizations. Please see WP:ANYBIO for subjects who are people. Please see Common sourcing mistakes (notability). The Wikipedia Adventure is a useful tutorial.

Also, encyclopedia articles must be neutral in tone and not use language that promotes or advocates for a subject, or tries to cast the subject in a favorable light. Please see Information on content and common pitfalls to avoid here and here. Sometimes creators of promotional/advocational content are bewildered that it is considered such. If one has been trained to write such content, or if one has spent some time writing such content, one may simply be blind to non-neutral phrases or styles.

Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. A common assumption is that the prohibition against promotional editing applies only to businesses or organizations. It applies to any topic, including a person, a non-commercial organization, a point of view, etc.   Persistent posters of promotional content may be blocked from editing.

CV's/resumé's are by their nature promotional. Writing about oneself or any connected subject is discouraged as the connection can make objectivity difficult. Information on avoiding advocational content and common pitfalls is  here and here, however be aware that these are not exhaustive.

New article creation can be difficult, but the Article Wizard can help you. The new user tutorial can help you avoid future problems. You can also ask for help at the WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk, and on IRC chat. Sometimes it is better to first gain experience by fixing and helping maintain existing articles. Community portal/Opentask contains links to things that badly need doing, if you are so inclined. &#45;- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:59, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to add promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. JBW (talk) 16:22, 18 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Why I will blocked? Please explain I'm not posting this on main space this is my sandbox this is not live in main space article Michael Hones (talk) 16:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You are not blocked. Your spam was deleted. Please read and heed the deletion notice I left, reading and heeding the information linked therein .Thanks. &#45;-  Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I asked, "Why will I be blocked in the future in response to the warning from JBW?" I haven't committed any crime or tried to harm the main space. I only posted in my sandbox, which is completely private and not public. Michael Hones (talk) 16:42, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * We delete spam wherever it is posted. (three times) Please read and heed the deletion notice and information linked therein before attempting to create an article. &#45;-  Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:48, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Those articles are not spam. They were created after extensive research, and everything in them is accurate. Additionally, I used AI assistance to ensure the pages comply with Wikipedia's terms and conditions. Michael Hones (talk) 16:51, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I am saddened that you do not recognize the promotional nature of your edits and by your inability to follow guidance. &#45;- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:54, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * What if I send you my draft copy before publishing it on Wikipedia, and you make the necessary changes to ensure it complies with Wikipedia's policies? Michael Hones (talk) 17:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:U5 and WP:NOTWEBHOST. It is not a place to host your own website, blog, wiki, résumé, or cloud. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 17:09, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

A few pieces of information and advice which I hope may be helpful to you
Michael, having read everything that you have written here, it seems to me that you probably do not understand what about your editing has been seen as problematic. Some of the messages to you have not been as helpful as they might have been, including, I confess, my own message to you, for which I apologise. Here are some more detailed comments, which I hope may help you to better understand what the problems are. As I said above, I hope these comments may help you to better understand what the problems are with your editing. If you need any further clarify any of the points I have mentioned then please feel welcome to ask me. JBW (talk) 19:22, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think that the word "spam" is grossly overused on Wikipedia. Spam, as I understand it, is promotional material posted by someone acting in bad faith, knowingly posting it where they know it is likely to be unwelcome, but on Wikipedia the word "spam" is very often used to refer to any promotional material, even if it is posted in good faith. However, if we ignore the word "spam", and look at your editing history, there is no doubt that much of it has been promotional. I will illustrate that, but before I do, it may be useful if I clarify what "promotional" means in this context, because many new editors make various mistaken assumptions, such as that the word refers only to promotion for financial gain. Any kind of promotion is unacceptable, including promoting an opinion, promoting the image of a musician one admires, praising or indicating approval or support for anyone or anything, or equally criticising or indicating disapproval, as that is promoting a point of view. Now here are just two examples of language you have used which are clearly not neutral, but are promotional in tone: "His strategic vision and commitment to innovation have positioned him as a leading figure", "demonstrating his ability to identify market opportunities, build effective business models, and drive growth". I could easily give more examples. Wikipedia seeks to give neutral coverage to subjects, and that kind of adulatory language is not acceptable.
 * Several times you have said that the material in question has been posted in a sandbox, which you have described as "completely private and not public", and which you have said "will never hurt main space". There is a sense in which a sandbox is not public, in that to see it one needs to click on links that take one into the background of Wikipedia, rather than the publicly visible face of Wikipedia articles, but it is not private in the sense of being an editor's personal space to write anything they choose. Every page on Wikipedia is based on the Wikimedia Foundation's servers. Those servers are provided for the specific purpose of building an encyclopaedia, not for the purpose of providing a free web host for people to use for "completely private" material for their own use, which will never have any impact on mainspace. Far from the fact that it "will never hurt main space" being a reason why material in userspace is OK, the fact that it is not intended to affect mainspace is a reason why it is not OK.
 * You say that you "used AI assistance to ensure the pages comply with Wikipedia's terms and conditions". Unfortunately, editors who do that almost always produce a result which does not comply with Wikipedia's terms and conditions, in various ways. AI programs are extremely good at certain tasks, such as writing text which praises in glowing terms a cause it is intended to promote, but very bad at other tasks, such as showing an actual understanding of what that cause is about. Although "AI" stands for "artificial intelligence", there is no intelligence there at all, just a very effective way of writing text which superficially gives the impression of being based on intelligence, and one of the things it does not do is have an intelligent understanding of what Wikipedia's terms and conditions mean.
 * Normal people in normal conversation don't use language like "These acquisitions expanded his portfolio"; they would use words more like "After he had bought those businesses he owned more businesses than he had owned before", if for some strange reason they wanted to make such a completely vacuous statement. There are, as far as I know, only two possible reasons why you would come up with language such as that: (1) it was a consequence of using AI, which comes up with marketing speak like that because very often people using AI text generators want it do come up with text like that, so it has learnt to to do so, or (2) you write like that because you are a professional marketing or PR person, and you are so used to marketing language of that kind that that it seems to you like natural English. Neither of those two is a good reason for including it in Wikipedia.
 * The kinds of things which I have mentioned give the impression, rightly or wrongly, that you are here as a paid marketing professional to create promotional material for clients. If that is true then you need to read Wikipedia's guideline on conflict of interest before you do any more editing, and make sure you follow its requirements. If, on the other hand, that impression is not correct, then you would be very well advised not to try to write articles or article-like pages at present, as you are evidently not aware of what kind of writing is acceptable. My advice to new editors is that it is best to start by making small improvements to existing articles, rather than creating new articles. That way any mistakes you make will be small ones, and you won't have the discouraging experience of repeatedly seeing hours of work deleted. Gradually, you will get to learn how Wikipedia works, and after a while you will know enough about what is acceptable to be able to write whole new articles without fear that they will be deleted. Over the years I have found that editors who start by making small changes to existing articles and work up from there have a far better chance of having a successful time here than those who jump right into creating new articles from the start.

Some advice about drafts for articles

 * The whole point of Wikipedia's draft space is to avoid pages intended to become articles but not yet ready to do so being posted on the publicly visible face of the encyclopaedia; a page which has as its sole content "Page Under Construction" is obviously, by definition, not ready to be an article.
 * It will be advisable for you not to post articles directly, but instead to submit them for review as articles for creation, in view of your inexperience and evident lack of clarity as to what is suitable. If you continue to post unsuitable articles, they are likely to be deleted, and eventually it could possibly even lead to your being blocked from editing; submitting drafts for review is a much safer route. JBW (talk) 13:02, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

 I gave up a significant amount of my time writing the messages above to try to help you. I gave you considerable benefit of the doubt, by assuming that you were editing in good faith, falling foul of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines because you didn't know of them or didn't understand them. Other editors too have tried to help you, most notably, who too has been generous enough to assume good faith in the face of evidence to the contrary. However, it became increasingly difficult to maintain that assumption of good faith, in the face of your continuing to edit in unacceptable ways, particularly your repeatedly posting unambiguously promotional text despite messages informing you that doing so is unacceptable. You were pretty certainly heading for being blocked from editing sooner rather than later, but your action concerning the disambiguation page Millspaugh has removed any lingering trace of doubt: there is no way that hijacking a page and replacing its contents with promotional material on a totally unrelated subject was done in good faith. That was blatant spamming. It is clear beyond any reasonable doubt that you are here for the purpose of creating promotional articles, and that you have no intention of letting Wikipedia's policies stand in the way of your doing so. Consequently the inevitable block from editing is now in effect. If you think there are good reasons why unblocking you would benefit the encyclopaedia, you may make a request to be unblocked by first reading guide to appealing blocks and then adding the text at the bottom of this page, replacing "Your reason here" with appropriate text. JBW (talk) 15:41, 21 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Endorse block., it is hard to see your efforts (euphemistically speaking) disregarded in this manner. You went to extraordinary lengths. SMDH. &#45;-  Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:21, 21 June 2024 (UTC)