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  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, 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:
 * 1) editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
 * 2) participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
 * 3) linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam);
 * and you must always:
 * 1) 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 Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Conflict of Interest. 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, 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)

Email
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 referenced AbleStable many years ago at Wikipedia, however this site (no longer in development) sought to encourage creativity by offering over 500 hundred free resources to the Internet community. I am sure I have not edited the Wikipedia page for very many years. My act of service in creating AbleStable, was 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 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 frequently 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 my 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 say:

I find 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 infrequent contributions to Wikipedia is not the point (I have made more than two but these have not been accepted). 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 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 and that it contributed to the Wikipedia community? 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 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 that informs and authenticates any contributions I have made 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. It was inevitable that I would make far more updates, 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 of an article on my website detailing issues arising from the deletion of my user page at Wikipedia, together with a screenshot of the original undeleted article:

http://www.mikedesousa.com/guest/on-being-deleted.html

Further comments about deleted userpage
You seem to be under the impression that my deletion of your userpage was a personal on you or on your career or your lifestyle; it was none of these things. In Wikipedia (which is often called "the wiki", although I accept that it should not be) administrators, while enjoying a measure of attitude in their behavior, are required to follow and to implement Wikipedia policies, and to require other editors to do so. I have given you a condensed version of the userpage policy in my earlier comment; feel free to read the whole thing at WP:USERPAGE. I do understand your frustration, but I am sorry to say that it is misplaced; the error is yours, not mine.--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 21:19, 3 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I have read the comment on your website indicated by the link immediately above. A brief summary would be "I do not agree with Wikipedia userpage policy". You have the absolute right to disagree with all or any part of Wikipedia policy, but if editing here you are required to abide by it.--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 21:43, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

In Response

Hi Anthony, thank you for your reply. Let me take your points in order. I will try to be as brief as possible.

I do not think your decision to delete my user page was personal. It is concerning for the reasons I have stated in my rebuttal on my website. If you read this carefully you will note I make principled points that discuss the nature of editorial control. I use my direct experience of having pages deleted from Wikipedia by you to make these points.

It is easy to assert someone is in error and that they do not understand. I am someone who trusts that others will make up their minds about issues through evidence, argument and discussion, rather than assertion.

I do not hold with your summary of the page on my website I link to above. While a small part of what I write about implies criticism of Wikipedia's policies, its main thrust is a critique of how the deletion of user pages at Wikipedia without discussion undermines the authority and integrity of its content. Perhaps you might re-visit the page once more and ponder more carefully. Think especially about what constitutes an appropriate volume of content for a user page given their profile, how Wikipedia users interact and value content on user pages, and the primary function of a user page. With these issues in mind I have sought to interpret Wikipedi's policies rather than reject them.

Kind Regards,

Mike


 * Mike, I am implementing Wikipedia policy. I did not and do not make this policy, but as an admin of more than ten years experience I fell able competently to implement it, and have done so in your case. and I have to say, hopefully clearly, that the fact that you do not agree with my action does not make me wrong, nor does it make you right. The primary function of a userpage is as described in WP:USERPAGE, which will demonstrate the gap between Wikipedia policies and your interpretation thereof. This interpretation is wholly at variance with the stated purpose of userpages within Wikipedia policy pages, which I had believed had been clearly explained to you. Please understand that arguing the facts is, and will be, wholly pointless.--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 22:13, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

In Response

Hi Anthony, you appear to view policies as unambiguous and never to be questioned or debated. You have deleted my user page at Wikipedia without meaningful discussion, and I dispute this as a reasonable course of action. Whatever the common understanding of policies and conventions may be, it is important to be open about their interpretation, especially for an organization like Wikipedia that places empowerment and engagement at the top of its mission statement:

https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use/en

Open discussions are indicators of an organization's integrity. With respect, your efforts to bring this conversation to a close undermine this principle.

Consider the laws of a country and its constitution. These are the highest 'rules' of a society, and yet they are debated, and their meaning is often interpreted differently and argued over. Words are understood in different ways, no matter what one person or another honestly believes. The intention of words is a constant source of reflection and debate in a healthy community. Let me turn to the rules that apply to user profiles at Wikipedia as they relate to the deletion of my user page. I have paid particular attention to the section "What may I not have in my user pages?" and in particular "Promotional and advocacy material and links":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_pages

The points under the section "Promotional and advocacy material and links" which you appear to have made a judgement to delete my user page follow:

1. Advertising or promotion of an individual, business, organization, group, or viewpoint unrelated to Wikipedia (such as commercial sites or referral links).

2. Extensive self-promotional material, especially when not directly relevant to Wikipedia.

Referring to user pages I note that there is "...more latitude in user space than elsewhere...". This clearly indicates flexibility in editorial decisions about the content of user pages, let alone their removal...

My intention was to contribute more to Wikipedia, however as I have said, I have found the site difficult to navigate from a contributor's point of view. I believed working on my page would not only assist me in building my knowledge and experience so that I could more effectively do so in future, but that it would also serve to provide context to the contributions I have, and hoped to make. One of the frequent criticisms of Wikipedia is its lack of authority. By detailing my interests, history, and publications, my intention was, at least in small part, to address this.

With this in mind I thought it perfectly reasonable to provide an overview of myself, indeed I thought this was my responsibility. Furthermore, I suggest that detailing information of a personal nature is indeed relevant in this context as visitors to Wikipedia are making judgments about the authority of content I have and would have made.

Consider my fields of expertise: creativity, art, music, and language. I believe it is pertinent and appropriate to detail my background and experience in these fields, along with my prominent publications and achievements. An intrinsic part of creativity is the person. Insights to the person are expressed through reference to their personal history and experience. This is what I did, briefly. My web site hosts far more details about me and far more publications, however I judged a relatively short overview at Wikipedia that would form my user page would serve visitors and contributors to get more out of Wikipedia. This is my opinion, and yours may well differ, however while you may disagree with my judgment as an editor, a reasonable explanation of why my user page was completely deleted has not been forthcoming other than a simple assertion that I broke the rules.

I turn to the section "Deletion of user pages":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_pages

"Except for blatant or serious matters, it is preferable to try contacting the user before deletion."

I also suggest the following page is noted together with the clear procedures that were not taken in my case:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion

"Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases."

My case is that the content on my user page at Wikipedia was not created to promote myself. I have a website that informs people about me and my work. Enter "Mike de Sousa" into Google and you may quickly prove this. Wikipedia does not, and has never appeared in a search result of me until I published my rebuttal of deletion on my website. My name appears as the first result on the very first page. Now if you enter "Mike de Sousa Wikipedia" you will, somewhat ironically, find a result. Given my prominent online profile I do not believe it can be reasonably argued that I used Wikipedia for self promotion. I therefore look forward to hearing with interest what "blatant or serious matter" under Wikipedia's policies you believe my user page fell under to warrant a "Speedy Deletion".

Kind Regards,

Mike

5th April 2018


 * I have explained the situation to you as clearly as I can. If you are unable to accept this I have no more to say. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 19:07, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

In Response

Hi Anthony, with respect, you have not responded to my points but dismissed them under the premise I have not accepted "the situation".

You deleted my user account at Wikipedia under section "U5. Blatant misuse of Wikipedia as a web host" of the criteria for speedy deletion:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#U5

"Pages in userspace consisting of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals, where the owner has made few or no edits outside of user pages, with the exception of plausible drafts and pages adhering to Wikipedia User pages"

An important phrase in this criterion is "...not closely related to Wikipedia's goals...". That is, a user page should only be deleted when it is unrelated to Wikipedia's goals. Wikipedia's goals are those expressed in its mission statement which I linked to in my previous response. My long standing goals match and support those of the Wikimedia Foundation and Wikipedia:

https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Mission_statement

https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use/en

To "Empower and Engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content and either publish it under a free license or dedicate it to the public domain.

Disseminate this content effectively and globally, free of charge."

I have made efforts online that match these goals since well before Wikipedia came into existence. I have created free content that informs, educates, and seeks to enrich those experiencing content I have created, and I have encouraged others to do the same.

As my user page at Wikipedia was deleted under section "U5. Blatant misuse of Wikipedia as a web host", it is reasonable to argue this action was not appropriate because of my long standing alignment with Wikipedia's goals.

Note too the very next sentence under section U5 at Wikipedia:

"Before placing this template or deleting a page under this criterion, read Wikipedia: User pages Handling inappropriate content and Deletion of user pages".

Section U5 speedy deletions must be taken in light of these advisories. I trust those reading this exchange will form their own opinions, and my hope is that you and other editors at Wikipedia will think more carefully about the deletion of user pages under U5 in future.

There is an issue of principle at play here that has moved beyond the deletion of my particular user page, to one that concerns issues of reasonable discussion and redress to those with deleted user page content at Wikipedia. By not engaging with issues that are raised, there seems no forum or means for users who disagree with editorial decisions to voice their concerns in reasoned dialog. I would therefore appreciate you pointing me towards information relating to the independent appeals procedure at Wikipedia.

Kind Regards,

Mike 6 April 2018


 * I will point out, again, that the deletion of your userpage was done in accordance with Wikipedia policies and procedures, and I believe that you will have to gather concensus to get these changed if you wish your userpage, as written, to be retained. To answer your question; the page you are seeking is the deletion review page. --Anthony Bradbury</b><sup style="color:black;">"talk" 18:27, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

In Response

Hi Anthony, I disagree, my judgement is that the deletion of my user page was not done in accordance with Wikipedia policies and procedures for the reasons I have given above, and which you have repeatedly failed to respond to with any meaningful dialog.

Thank you for the link to the deletion review page which I have read carefully. I find the deletion review procedure abstruse from a usability point of view. Where I had expected to find a simple form, there are snippets of code that need to be copied and pasted into various pages at particular points, and that are referred to with subtly different fonts within explanatory text, that are not at all easily accessible.

While I appreciate you have no control over the language or usability of procedures at Wikipedia, it makes the process of appeal Kafkaesque. If I had confidence that I could carry out the procedure appropriately I would make the appeal; however I am not at all certain that my review would be received without error. The outcome is that the poor method of appeal at Wikipedia, together with its maze of overly complex language and procedures, dissuade those like me who genuinely wish to contribute.

Unless there are significant improvements to the Plain English and contributor processes of Wikipedia (clear and unambiguous language, without the use of technical or difficult terms and requirements), the site will only appeal to a certain kind of contributor/editor, and this is to the site's considerable loss.

I have learned many things during this process. That while Wikipedia is an invaluable reference tool, there are serious shortcomings from a contributor's point of view: pages may be deleted without meaningful debate; contributor pages are of very limited value; and editors with narrow understanding of what constitutes policy, make unwise decisions that include the deletion of user pages. Thanks to our exchange I am now far more wary of Wikipedia from both a contributor user point of view, and this inevitably extends to its overall authenticity and authority.

Kind Regards,

Mike

9 April 2018