User talk:Francisacea: Difference between revisions

Line 54: Line 54:

:From Altenmann on the Discussion page: “I am afraid you are mistaken to consider only sources in the article and disregard good sources I presented right here. In AfDs notability is judged by the whole evidence. Sometimes we “keep” articles with not a single source cited. –Altenmann >talk 22:58, 23 September 2025 (UTC)”. Sometimes we “keep” articles with not a single source cited, seriously? And my whole page content got removed despite being sourced? How crazy that is? [[User:Francisacea|Francisacea]] ([[User talk:Francisacea#top|talk]]) 23:01, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

::Note that you cannot edit while blocked, and asking others to edit for you (including using your talk page to reply to conversations you otherwise could not) is considered [[WP:PROXYING]], and can result in you losing access to your talk page. I encourage you to delete the above comment (and this one) to make it clear you do not intend to proxy. [[User:EducatedRedneck|EducatedRedneck]] ([[User talk:EducatedRedneck|talk]]) 16:55, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

:::I’m aware I’m blocked. I believe you must read my comment more carefully. I’m not asking anybody to edit for me. I also believe you’re threatening me with more sanctions without a reason. I can still reply to editors on my talk page, thanks [[User:Francisacea|Francisacea]] ([[User talk:Francisacea#top|talk]]) 17:42, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

{{unblock reviewed|decline=In addition to what has already been said, please note that Wikipedia defines notability in a specific way. Generally speaking, we require [[WP:R|reliable]], [[WP:IS|independent]] sources with [[WP:SIGCOV|significant coverage]] of the subject. You can review Wikipedia’s [[WP:GNG|general notability guidelines]] and the [[WP:NARTIST|notability guidelines for artists]] and [[WP:NBIO|people more generally]]. Beyond this, you have made it clear you have no interest in editing Wikipedia aside from {{tq|protecting [your] legacy and ensuring that [your] life’s work is represented accurately}}. This goes against Wikipedia’s [[WP:PILLAR|foundational pillars]]. You will not be unblocked until you understand this. [[User:Significa liberdade|Significa liberdade <small>(she/her)</small>]] ([[User talk:Significa liberdade|talk]]) 00:08, 24 September 2025 (UTC)|I feel that I’ve been unfairly blocked for “personal attacks”. The editor/administrator that blocked me has failed to point out the offending attacks, and also blocked another account that I originally have had for 18 years for “evasion” despite m disclosing that identity since the very first moment an issue was spotted on the page. I believe the block was arbitrary, unfriendly and most of all failed to point out the reason. I’m respectfully request that at least one of the accounts in unblocked so I can participate in the discussion about the deletion of the page, thank you. [[User:Francisacea|Francisacea]] ([[User talk:Francisacea#top|talk]]) 20:51, 23 September 2025 (UTC)}}

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 14:30, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dennis C. Abrams and Wikipedia editors,

I want to clarify that my full name is Abel Santiago Francis Acea, and yes, I am also the user Fdkid. I originally created the “Francis Acea” Wikipedia page in 2008 using my first email, fdkidatyahoodotcom, which I had been using since my time living in Havana.

This page has served as a factual record of my career and artistic contributions. I assure you that all the information presented is accurate and verifiable, and at no point has it been flagged for containing false or misleading content. My intent has never been to misrepresent or violate Wikipedia’s policies on self-promotion or conflict of interest. Rather, this article is a chronological inventory of my professional achievements, not a promotional tool.

The reason I have taken responsibility for maintaining this page myself is simple: I believe in protecting my legacy and ensuring that my life’s work is represented accurately. In today’s world, misinformation spreads easily, and I do not wish for my story to be shaped by bad actors or individuals who may distort the facts. My reputation and artistic contributions are deeply personal, and I prefer to maintain control over how they are presented to the public.

I recognize Wikipedia’s guidelines and the importance of neutrality. If there are specific concerns about content, I am open to discussing ways to ensure the article remains in compliance with Wikipedia’s editorial standards. I welcome constructive feedback and collaboration to maintain accuracy and transparency.

Thank you,

Abel Santiago Francis Acea (Fdkid) Francisacea (talk) 15:18, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To start with, I’d recommend reading Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide and Wikipedia:Notable person survival kit – there’s lots of good advice in there for someone in your situation. If you plan on continuing to edit here you should probably also familiarize yourself with the core content policies.

The main issue that stands out to me about your article right now is that it’s not an article, it’s a résumé. The vast majority of the content on the page right now is just the kind of list of past work you’d send to a hiring manager, and I wouldn’t be surprised if those sections get removed for that reason. The second thing I notice is that the “Biography” section has no references; for an article about a living person this is not allowed for many reasons.

Additionally, while you may have good reason to believe in “protecting [your] legacy and ensuring that [your] life’s work is represented accurately”, Wikipedia may not be the best place for you to do it; no one owns your article, not even you. Now that this article is receiving attention from other editors, trying to “maintain control” over it is likely to get you into conflict.

I’ve tagged the article with the issues I’ve described above. Let me know if you have any questions. —Richard Yin (talk) 20:14, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I’m Chaotic Enby. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Francis Acea have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a “soapbox” are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. I genuinely invite you to not edit your own article directly, but use edit requests on the talk page instead. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 02:46, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Francis Acea, you may be blocked from editing. See the comments I made to you on the article talk page. Walter Ego 18:52, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First and foremost, I’ve already stated “regardless of Wikipedia guidelines.” Obviously, I am not an expert, and I will not argue or defend a position against any of you. The last thing I need is for some anonymous editor named Foxy the Dog to question my notability, especially when there is no misrepresentation in the information contained on the page. This is my legacy, it is true, and as an independent creator and entrepreneur I do not have to depend on anyone else to create or maintain it. Furthermore, Wikipedia is widely known for its biased content and for hosting multiple falsehoods—on subjects far more significant, in my opinion, than an independent person simply trying to preserve his legacy and prevent its distortion. I know of many cases where activist editors have attacked and twisted facts about notable personalities for ideological reasons. I would also point out that this page remained untouched for nearly 18 years without any of you raising concerns. It was only this past January, when I began promoting my anti-communist newspaper Opinión Cubana, that some anonymous editor—identity unknown, perhaps from Africa—suddenly began adding notes and censoring information. Where were the guidelines and concerns during the 17 years prior? Do you want me to highlight the many other pages on this platform that clearly have far less notability? Finally, let me clarify: I was not name-calling, I was directly insulting you. One thing I have not included on this page, for obvious reasons, is my political activism against communism, socialism, Antifa, and the radical left worldwide—work that is far more notable than my contributions to contemporary art. That is without even mentioning my professional background working at companies such as McKinsey & Co. and Columbia University. I’ve replaced the full code, if it gets censored again, I will remove the page altogether, no problem, After my death, it will be re-uploaded, and you’ll have to stick to it. In reality, it’s of no use at present. Have a nice day.

PS:These two artists, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diango_Hern%C3%A1ndez) and (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernesto_Oroza), that appear as related to my page, were my partners at some point, Diango Hernandez and I worked together for 7 years. Why are their pages untouched? And what is the difference between their page and mine? I know, because they have remained working with the institutions you are validating as notable, but for an independent person, not a professional artist, but a true creator that do not comply with the status quo of this platform, it’s not possible to use it without getting castrated by you, unnoticeable people. Have it your way, truth always prevails. But until you demonstrate I was abusing the platform, the abuser will be you. How dare you accusing me of vandalizing? Watch your mouth whoever you are. Just let me know, and I will delete the page, thanks Francisacea (talk) 20:51, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can find it here. – Walter Ego 16:09, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain pages (Francis Acea) for persistently contributing to an article that you have a conflict of interest, reverting other editors’ work on it, and WP:OWN issues..

I want this page remove from wikipedia, I’m the subject of this page and it’s misrepresenting my work and identity, please advise, thanks Francisacea (talk) 16:39, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions; however, it appears you may have written a Wikipedia article, or a draft for a Wikipedia article, about yourself. Creating an autobiography is strongly discouraged – please see our guideline on writing autobiographies. If you create such an article, it may be deleted. If what you have done in life is genuinely notable and can be verified according to our policy for articles about living people, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later. If you wish to add to or change an existing article about yourself, you are welcome to propose the changes by visiting the article’s talk page. Please understand that this is an encyclopedia and not a personal web space or social networking site. If your article has already been deleted, please see: Why was the page I created deleted?, and if you feel the deletion was an error, please discuss this with the deleting administrator. Thank you. Secretlondon (talk) 16:41, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, however, I created this page, now I want it deleted, please advise on how to completely remove this page from Wikipedia, thank you Francisacea (talk) 16:45, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You didn’t actually create the page; the one that you originally created was deleted as a copyright violation. The current version it was started by another editor, but certainly you have been the main contributor to it. And regardless of whether or not you were the original author, you don’t actually have the right to demand that it be deleted – that would need to be determined by a discussion at WP:AfD. If it were to be established that you do not meet our notability requirements, then it would be deleted; I haven’t looked at the sourcing in sufficient detail to establish whether or not that would be the case, but my guess is that since other people took the time to contribute to the page, there is sufficient sourcing, and the discussion would result in its being kept. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:58, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it was clear that fdki@yahoo.com it’s also me, an identity I used 15 years ago, yes, I did create this page I would like to have it removed from Wikipedia for the same reasons you’ve expressed before, it was my mistake and I would like to have it removed, please advise, thank you Francisacea (talk) 17:00, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve been dealing with issues regarding a page I created in December 2008. I don’t have anything further to say about the page itself. However, today I was made aware that I am not listed as the creator and that the page has been newly attributed to another user. When I check the page history, it shows that this user created it back in 2008, which is not true. I wasn’t aware that editors could take over authorship of pages regardless of prior contributions. I find this utterly abusive and misleading, exercising control over information that may underrepresent my identity to the world. If it was my mistake, whether through ignorance or careless behavior, I don’t believe that you—or Wikipedia, for that matter—should be able to retain the page, as it was never your intention to create or maintain it. I have repeatedly requested that the page be deleted. I do not wish to appear on this platform anymore, and I don’t believe that you now have the right—after all the discussion—to keep it and edit it at your discretion, especially when my notability is demonstrated in the same reference section that has been kept. However, all references to my work have been removed—not edited or fixed, but completely removed—which is a major contradiction. I am now formally requesting, as I have before, that the page be deleted due to the lack of notability of the subject (myself) and the underrepresentation of my work. Please advise. Thank you. Francisacea (talk) 17:41, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this is just a heads up that, as a courtesy, I’ve nominated the article for deletion. You can view and participate in the discussion here. However, as I indicated on your thread at MRG’s talk page, deletion discussions, just like everything else on Wikipedia, are decided by community consensus, not by the say-so of any one editor. Please exercise restraint if you decide to participate in the deletion discussion, and keep in mind that it will ultimately be decided by the strength of the arguments rooted in deletion policy. Thanks, Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:05, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And just for the record, none of what you posted on MRG’s talk page or the AfD have anything to do with whether your article should be deleted or not–indeed, I had nominated your page as a courtesy to you before you even posted it–and frankly, I’m not sure what rhetorical game you’re even trying to play. Is your thought that Wikipedia is “leftist” and that, by painting yourself as a “rightist” or whatever, that we’ll want to delete your article more? That would be a silly game to play–even if your completely fabricated assumptions were correct, the hypothetical leftist boogeyman you assume us to be would be just as likely to instead want to keep the article in place out of spite, especially now that you’ve been blocked from directly editing it. Oh well. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:29, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was being sarcastic. Everything on my page was true. Whether there was enough sourcing or not, or whether I created it or not, is not relevant to me, because I was not self-promoting or abusing the platform. I thought I shouldn’t have to depend on anyone to control my own legacy—that was it, that was all. I do agree that this may violate Wikipedia guidelines, but hey, nobody told me in 17 years. You know, things were very different back in 2008, and you are also aware that there are plenty of bad actors around. If Wikipedia is leftist or biased, yes I’ve seen this type of claim, I cannot assert it. You’ve been very kind and understanding, I do really appreciate it. I sincerely hope the page gets deleted, my legacy don’t depend of being featured here, and trust me, it’s more deserving to be than many many other pages I see every day, and it will comeback here, not by me, but from the recipients of all my deeds, thank you. Francisacea (talk) 18:46, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see discussion:, out of the sudden, notability has been established, while I’ve been blocked for “personal attacks” . “a pissed off “page owner” is an invalid reason for deletion. The current blurb has no BLP issues and notability is readily established”. I just want out Sr, please help me delete this page, thank you. Francisacea (talk) 20:45, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I find the following comment offensive: “Hmmm, let’s take a closer look at these impressive-sounding sources:” It questions my character and notability in a pretentious manner, while falling extremely short in its assertions and findings. Here are more sources for it to “make fun of”: [1]. While I was blocked indefinitely for alleged “personal attacks,” my reputation is at stake and in the hands of Wikipedia editors who, although proficient in Wikipedia policies, are completely ignorant of art matters and the art industry, and are using the same innuendos I’ve used in my comments without moderation. This does not reflect any desire on my part to retain the page; it may be deleted, as far as I am concerned. However, it is genuinely disheartening to witness how the power of the majority is enforced without providing the right to reply. Francisacea (talk) 16:05, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

… and yet here you are, replying. Gosh. – Walter Ego 17:08, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly believe your policies are biased and tyrannical. It’s true I wasn’t here to build Wikipedia, but it took editors and administrators 17 years to let me know. Many pages of other artists are built as resumes, and I don’t see any editor removing content on them. I honestly believe my page was targeted for ideological reasons.

I would like to be unblocked so I can participate in the discussion about whether the page gets deleted or not. For instance, an editor found some sources that now, some how magically, establish notability, but he didn’t add them to the page. Is that editor really here to build an encyclopedia? He also referred to books as “some old books.” Well, the Bible is an old book—and it’s not my fault that much of my contemporary art work was produced before the internet.

On the other hand, I do have many sources that will validate my claims. I also find many editors ignorant in art matters. For example, Foxy the Dog claims that “art catalogues” are not primary sources. What other sources do artists have? Having catalogues is actually a privilege that only notable artists get, as they are expensive to produce. My work was included in museum exhibitions worldwide, my face appeared on the front pages of several newspapers, and my work was featured in numerous art publications, including books written at Yale. How in the world am I not going to be upset about anonymous people questioning the quality of my work?

That is my explanation for why I would like to be unblocked. By exercising this power, my page is now at the mercy of editors who dismiss my credentials—this is exactly why I wanted to have the ability to edit it. And as for personally attacking editors, which I don’t believe I did, isn’t it also a personal attack when anonymous individuals question your credibility? Francisacea (talk) 22:48, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From Altenmann on the Discussion page: “I am afraid you are mistaken to consider only sources in the article and disregard good sources I presented right here. In AfDs notability is judged by the whole evidence. Sometimes we “keep” articles with not a single source cited. –Altenmann >talk 22:58, 23 September 2025 (UTC)”. Sometimes we “keep” articles with not a single source cited, seriously? And my whole page content got removed despite being sourced? How crazy that is? Francisacea (talk) 23:01, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note that you cannot edit while blocked, and asking others to edit for you (including using your talk page to reply to conversations you otherwise could not) is considered WP:PROXYING, and can result in you losing access to your talk page. I encourage you to delete the above comment (and this one) to make it clear you do not intend to proxy. EducatedRedneck (talk) 16:55, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m aware I’m blocked. I believe you must read my comment more carefully. I’m not asking anybody to edit for me. I also believe you’re threatening me with more sanctions without a reason. I can still reply to editors on my talk page, thanks Francisacea (talk) 17:42, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This user’s unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Francisacea (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I feel that I’ve been unfairly blocked for “personal attacks”. The editor/administrator that blocked me has failed to point out the offending attacks, and also blocked another account that I originally have had for 18 years for “evasion” despite m disclosing that identity since the very first moment an issue was spotted on the page. I believe the block was arbitrary, unfriendly and most of all failed to point out the reason. I’m respectfully request that at least one of the accounts in unblocked so I can participate in the discussion about the deletion of the page, thank you. Francisacea (talk) 20:51, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

The editor/administrator that blocked me has failed to point out the offending attacks They were pointed out in the ANI thread. But since you asked: [2], [3], [4]. and also blocked another account that I originally have had for 18 years for “evasion” despite m disclosing that identity That wasn’t me, that was SarekOfVulcan, and it having been disclosed doesn’t change the fact that once this account was blocked you went back to it to use it to evade this block. And none of this addresses the other, frankly more serious issue: that you are not here to help build an encyclopedia. – The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:51, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Must Read

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply