User talk:Fabochemkwani: Difference between revisions

[[File:Information.svg|25px|alt=Information icon]] Hello, I’m [[User:Zackmann08|Zackmann08]]. I wanted to let you know that one or more of [[Special:Contributions/Fabochemkwani|your recent contributions]] have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion|Advertising]] and using Wikipedia as a “[[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox|soapbox]]” are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using [[Wikipedia:Independent sources|independent sources]], and from a [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|neutral perspective]]. Take a look at the [[Help:Introduction|welcome page]] to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you.[[Category:User talk pages with Uw-advert1 notices|{{PAGENAME}}]]<!– Template:uw-advert1 –> ”'[[User:Zackmann08|<span style=”color:#00d5ff”>Zack</span><span style=”color:#007F94″>mann</span>]]”’ (^{[[User_talk:Zackmann08|Talk to me]]}/_{[[Special:Contributions/Zackmann08|<span style=”color:orange”>What I been doing</span>]]}) 23:16, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

[[File:Information.svg|25px|alt=Information icon]] Hello, I’m [[User:Zackmann08|Zackmann08]]. I wanted to let you know that one or more of [[Special:Contributions/Fabochemkwani|your recent contributions]] have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion|Advertising]] and using Wikipedia as a “[[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox|soapbox]]” are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using [[Wikipedia:Independent sources|independent sources]], and from a [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|neutral perspective]]. Take a look at the [[Help:Introduction|welcome page]] to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you.[[Category:User talk pages with Uw-advert1 notices|{{PAGENAME}}]]<!– Template:uw-advert1 –> ”'[[User:Zackmann08|<span style=”color:#00d5ff”>Zack</span><span style=”color:#007F94″>mann</span>]]”’ (^{[[User_talk:Zackmann08|Talk to me]]}/_{[[Special:Contributions/Zackmann08|<span style=”color:orange”>What I been doing</span>]]}) 23:16, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Snowycats were: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

Snowycats (talk) 01:33, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Fabochemkwani! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we’d love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Snowycats (talk) 01:33, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia!

It appears you may have used a large language model (LLM), such as ChatGPT, in your edits. While LLMs are powerful, machine-generated text often contains serious flaws. They may introduce bias, errors, plagiarism, libel, or even hoaxes. Specifically asking an LLM to “write a Wikipedia article” can sometimes cause the output to be outright fabrication, complete with fictitious references. Editors must verify all LLM-generated text before using it in an article. Completely LLM-generated articles may be quickly deleted. If you are unsure about your wording, an alternative is to suggest it on the talk page for another volunteer to look at it. If you are creating a new article, you may use the Articles for Creation process to get feedback on your work.

As you get started editing Wikipedia, you may find the pages below to be helpful:

If you still have questions, there is the Teahouse, or you can click here to ask a question on your talk page, and someone will be along to answer it shortly. In your messages, please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and a timestamp. Happy editing! jlwoodwa (talk) 02:09, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Plutus was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

Plutus 💬 mess — Fortune favors the curious 02:22, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Fabochemkwani. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for article subjects for more information. We ask that you:

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation‘s terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicizing, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. MCE89 (talk) 06:48, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Maternal Health Initiatives for Mothers, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

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. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 07:23, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Maternal Health Initiatives for Mothers. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability, it has too many problems of language or grammar and it consists of machine-generated text.
I have converted it to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page.
When the article is ready for publication, please click on the “Submit the draft for review!” button at the top of the page OR move the page back. —Gurkubondinn (talk) 13:34, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Draft:Dr. Sandra Nkechi Uzodimma, 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 Wikipedia: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 deleting administrator. GPL93 (talk) 22:11, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I’m Zackmann08. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions 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. Thank you. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:16, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on User:Fabochemkwani, 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 Wikipedia: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 deleting administrator. GPL93 (talk) 23:29, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I have seen the nomination for speedy deletion and would like to clarify that there was no intention to misuse Wikipedia or violate its policies. Any issues with my contributions were due to misunderstanding of content and editing guidelines, not bad faith.

I am willing to correct any problems identified and to comply fully with Wikipedia’s policies, including avoiding promotional content and following proper article creation procedures. If the page can be improved rather than deleted, I am open to making the necessary changes.

Thank you for your consideration.

Kind regards,

Fabochemkwani Fabochemkwani (talk) 06:45, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Draft:Maternal Health Initiatives for Mothers, 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 Wikipedia: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 deleting administrator. GPL93 (talk) 13:10, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia’s guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Daniel Case (talk) 03:15, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

UNBLOCK APPEAL

Hello Sir Daniel Case,

I acknowledge the block placed on my IP address and understand that some of my recent edits did not fully comply with Wikipedia’s content and editing guidelines. This was not intentional.

I now recognize the concerns around article creation, tone, and sourcing, and I am willing to adjust my approach accordingly. Going forward, I will refrain from recreating deleted pages, use the draft and Articles for Creation process where appropriate, and ensure that any future contributions follow Wikipedia’s policies, including those relating to conflict of interest.

I respectfully request that this block be reviewed. Thank you for taking the time to consider this request.

Kind regards,

Fabochemkwani Fabochemkwani (talk) 06:43, 16 December 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).

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

---

Request reason:

Your reason here

• UNBLOCK APPEAL

  Hello Sir Daniel Case,

  I acknowledge the block placed on my IP address and understand that some of my recent edits did not fully comply with Wikipedia’s content and editing guidelines. This was not intentional.

  I now recognize the concerns around article creation, tone, and sourcing, and I am willing to adjust my approach accordingly. Going forward, I will refrain from recreating deleted pages, use the draft and Articles for Creation process where appropriate, and ensure that any future contributions follow Wikipedia’s policies, including those relating to conflict of interest.

  I respectfully request that this block be reviewed. Thank you for taking the time to consider this request.

  Kind regards,

  Fabochemkwani Fabochemkwani (talk) 05:47, 19 December 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.

Fabochemkwani (talk) 05:47, 19 December 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).

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

---

Request reason:

Your reason here

Hello once again!

I am a young man full of hopes and dreams, very optimistic in joining the team of writers by contributing and building a world class wikipedia contents.

on my first attempts I seem to have crossed a path I am not supposed, that which by not complying with Wikipedia’s content policy and guidelines. Which i must say was as a result of just being optimistic and never meant to break a rule or policy.

It is in that regards that i write to please ask for a review on my block; that i have now read the Wikipedia article for creation, recreation of deleted pages, using tones that portray promotional content and whatnot.

That i will adhere fully by following a good guide in giving out useful contributions and also being professional, in any future writings or contributions, to follow Wikipedia’s policies, no conflict of interest

I seek to plea once again be reviewed so that my dreams to write do not die down the road. I do this ehoch both respect to your decision to blocking my IP address as well as my further contributions. Please have mercy, i wouldn’t sin no more. Please unblock me sir.

Thank you for your kind consideration.

Best regards,

Fabo Chemkwani Fabochemkwani (talk) 06:20, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

If you’re editing about clients, it’s up to you to first learn how things work here and how to make edits in compliance with our policies as a fiduciary responsibility to your clients who are paying you. We editors who are here for free because we believe in this project will answer your questions but will not hand hold you. You need to figure this out yourself. You seem to be going back and forth on whether or not you intend to refrain from editing about clients in the near future, so I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 09:09, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

Please place new posts at the bottom, so they stay in order. This may be easier to do if you click “edit” and not “reply” to edit this page; the reply function is imperfect and doesn’t work well in every situation; it does not accomodate unblock requests well, and it doesn’t always permit posting at the bottom. 331dot (talk) 09:06, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is your relationship to the subjects of your edits? I see that you claim to have personally taken and personally hold the copyright to this professionally taken image of Dr. Uzodimma. You also claim to have personally created and personally own the copyright to the logo of her organization. 331dot (talk) 09:11, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your response and for a prior recommendation on seeking further clarification.
To clarify this, I Fabo Chemkwani is not a family member of Dr. Sandra Nkechi Uzodimma. I am a graphic designer/content creator, photographer, video editor, a writer, and a web developer who on one account to another professionally worked and still working on branding materials (which comprises photography/logo creations) for her organization.

At the time of editing all those articles, Dr. Sandra Uzodimma’s page specifically, as of that time, I wasn’t fully in good understanding of Wikipedia’s conflict of interest and paid or connected editing policies/rules and regulations, therefore i acknowledged and still acknowledging that this was a grave mistake on my part.

While I personally snapped and also created the image and logo, holding the copyright to all the works, I now understand that this does not automatically perfected the fact to make them possibly authorized or suitable for use on Wikipedia, more specially when there is a professional relationship with the subject.

Hence, going forward, I am committed to fully disclosing any potential conflict of interest (COI), also refraining from editing articles about clients or associated individuals, to make sure i follow Wikipedia’s policies on COI, copyright, and a very neutral point of view.

I respectfully with high honor, do hereby ask that my block be reconsidered, and I am willing to comply with any conditions placed on my newly editing privileges.

Thank you so much for your time and guidance.

Yours truly,

Fabo Chemkwani
Fabochemkwani (talk) 01:58, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not every comment needs to be an unblock request, other comments should be standard, unformatted comments like this. Not every post needs to be in a separate section with its own header; please click “edit” at the top of the page or in the section header to edit this existing section.

If you did personally create the pages and logo, you certainly can upload them to Commons, if you want to release them for use by anyone for any purpose with attribution. That’s usually fine for an image, not so much for a logo(as it means others could use, or misuse, the logo and her organization could do nothing about it) but you certainly can release the logo if you want to if you are the creator.

If I read your post correctly, you meet the definition of a paid editor, please see WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 09:34, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fabochemkwani, you say refraining from editing articles about clients or associated individuals – are you sure? It looks like your whole purpose so far has been to write about those things, so it’s surprising to see you write that. If you’re not going to edit about them at all, you don’t need to follow the guidelines at WP:PAID. Can you clarify which you mean? — asilvering (talk) 07:09, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I actually meant, my editing has attachments, but my editing so far, is to contribute and profile people and organizations who have proven records and needs recognitions. It was my first time, and I kept editing deleted articles, which now, I understand that tones matters alot, in projecting whatever you want out there, which I have studied those regulations and learning already to start contributing better editing and articles. I hope this helps in clarifying my plea for an unblock.

I am on a learning on the job role so far. And all i meant was to start contributing properly and if there is any articles about clients, which i believe i have to learn how to edit, ill make sure it still projects wikipedia policies on that regards.

Thank you boss. Fabochemkwani (talk) 08:54, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Hi, I’ve moved the block notice and subsequent appeals to their own section since it was getting rather confusing. If you don’t like this, please feel free to revert or let me know and I can do this for you.

Admins need you to clearly explain why you are wanting to edit Wikipedia. You can’t change your mind between appeals and posts, I see some previous AI use so I’m wondering if that might explain the inconsistencies in your replies?

You must clearly explain if you are wanting to edit articles about clients – that in itself isn’t a huge problem because paid editors do exist on Wikipedia, you’ve just got to follow very specific guidelines.

If you’re completely abandoning any paid editing work and want to contribute to unrelated subjects, that’s also something that happens but is quite a big u-turn. Such a big change will require a clear explanation of what changed your mind.

What happens much more frequently then either of these situations, is when a paid editor doesn’t want to be scrutinised and just wants to be unblocked. They’ll say whatever they think we want to hear, without any serious intent of following it through. I’m not saying you fall into this last group, only that your inconsistent replies can be a sign of this happening.

Undisclosed paid editors get blocked on Wikipedia all the time. They try to get unblocked with insincere and inadequate appeals all the time. This situation isn’t unusual and admins can tell straight away if something is wrong.

If you plan to appeal again, write an honest appeal without the use of any tools. Read through any guidelines you’ve been given (click on blue text in previous posts) to understand why you were blocked. WP:COI and WP:PAID would apply to Dr. Sandra Uzodimma’s article, WP:NPOV and WP:NOTPROMO to pretty much everything else you’ve created. There will be other links given by other editors above.

Note that all your articles have been deleted for AI use, promotional editing and/or undeclared paid editing/conflict of interest. Your only two edits outside of this contained a word that doesn’t exist in the English language and a broken/incorrectly formatted citation.

None of the work you have done so far was suitable for inclusion at Wikipedia, which is extremely worrying and shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what this encyclopedia is for.

If you choose to appeal, explain why you are here and what you want to do. Do not use AI/LLM/Chatbot tools (I’m glad to see you stopped in your second appeal).

Please be aware that Talk page access can be removed if there are too many declined appeals – if you try to hide your true purpose here, we will be able to tell. Explain your previous paid editing and whether you plan to continue editing for your clients. Blue Sonnet (talk) 09:47, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]