User talk:Tomsekatwe

This is Tomsekatwe's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Consultant – BSS-CRM Private Consultancy (April 26)

Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by Theroadislong was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia.

Theroadislong (talk) 16:11, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tomsekatwe! Having an article 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! Theroadislong (talk) 16:11, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Autobiography?

Please read WP: AUTOBIOGRAPHY. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:37, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, User:Tomsekatwe/sandbox/Consultant – BSS-CRM Private Consultancy

Hello, Tomsekatwe. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "sandbox/Consultant – BSS-CRM Private Consultancy".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:24, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Tomsekatwe

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on User:Tomsekatwe, 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:

It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.
It 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. (See section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion.)

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. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 03:13, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Writing about yourself

You are welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, but it is not a social media site like Facebook or LinkedIn for people to write about themselves. It is a quite different sort of site, a project to build an encyclopedia, so it is selective about subjects for articles. Writing about oneself is strongly discouraged, for reasons explained at Wikipedia is not about YOU and Wikipedia:Autobiography.

Wikipedia user pages are not like those at social media sites. Their use is explained at WP:NOTWEBHOST:

"Wikipedians have individual user pages, but they should be used primarily to present information relevant to work on the encyclopedia. Limited autobiographical information is allowed, but user pages do not serve as personal webpages, blogs, or repositories for large amounts of material irrelevant to collaborating on Wikipedia. If you want to post your résumé or make a personal webpage, please use one of the many free providers on the Internet or any hosting included with your Internet service provider. The focus of user pages should not be social networking or amusement, but rather providing a foundation for effective collaboration. Humorous pages that refer to Wikipedia in some way may be created in an appropriate namespace. Personal web pages are often speedily deleted under criterion U5. Wikipedia articles use formal English and are not written in Internet posting style."

You can find out more about Wikipedia at the WP:Welcome page and the WP:Introduction, as well as Wikipedia's plain and simple conflict of interest guide. Thanks. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 03:13, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (June 24)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Qcne were:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Your draft shows signs of having been generated by a large language model, such as ChatGPT. Their outputs usually have multiple issues that prevent them from meeting our guidelines on writing articles. These include:

Promotional tone, editorializing and other words to watch
Vague, generic, and speculative statements extrapolated from similar subjects
Essay-like writing
Hallucinations (plausible-sounding, but false information) and non-existent references
Close paraphrasing

Please address these issues. The best way to do it is usually to read reliable sources and summarize them, instead of using a large language model. See our help page on large language models.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Do not use AI chatbots to write Wikipedia articles.

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.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:Tomsekatwe/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

qcne (talk) 16:37, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (June 24)

Your recent article submission has been rejected and cannot be resubmitted. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by Qcne was: This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: Do not create drafts with an AI chatbot. Further drafts can be made by following the Article Wizard but you must not use AI.

qcne (talk) 17:11, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Brother, thank you once again for reviewing this article.

I understand the concerns around AI-generated content, particularly the risks of inaccurate claims or unsupported references. In this case, I’ve taken great care to manually verify all information, and the current version has been rewritten entirely through the Article Wizard. It reflects my own edits, based on independently published and verifiable sources, especially from Ugandan media.

While AI was used early on as a tool (much like spellcheckers or citation assistants), I’ve ensured that the final submission represents fully human review and editorial judgment. I welcome any further suggestions and appreciate your time. Tomsekatwe (talk) 14:08, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Tom Sekatwe (July 3)

Your recent article submission has been rejected and cannot be resubmitted. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reasons left by JavaHurricane were: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: Draft was previously rejected. Please don't use Wikipedia for advertising purposes.

Java Hurricane 07:39, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 2025

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for advertising or promotion.

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 ~~~~}}. asilvering (talk) 15:48, 3 July 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).

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

Request reason:

My account has been blocked indefinitely due to promotional and Marketing content, but as per my edit history, that was not my intention, nor is there anything to promote or market. I have reviewed my draft, and genuinely, I do not see anything that could be considered promotional or marketing material. I believe the block may have been influenced by a misreading or assumptions from reviewer comments rather than the content itself. I was working on a draft article in good faith and as an elder (Retired). There was no product, service, or agenda being pushed, and I am happy to revise anything that may have been misinterpreted. I have tried my level best to use all available tools AI tools Inclusive only to help with structure and clarity, like a spellchecker or writing assistant, but not to promote any business or service and I have severally declared so in my edit summaries. If you look at the previous versions, I have tried my best to meet the Wikipedia content policy. I am willing to revise my edits, remove any promotional tone if any, and strictly follow Wikipedia's content policies going forward. I kindly request reconsideration of the blocking. Thank you. Tomsekatwe (talk) 21:32, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You "do not see anything that could be considered promotional", really? Your entire edit history is all about self-promotion. As has already been pointed out, you shouldn't be writing about yourself at all, but you chose to ignore that, and that is your call. But promotion of any kind is disallowed, and when it is clear that your only objective here is to promote yourself, then that's when we need to take action, hence this block. I will not unblock you to continue your self-promo campaign; if you have other editing interests, tell us what they are. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:33, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

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.

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).

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

Request reason:

@DoubleGrazing, I now understand that, according to Wikipedia reviewers and Administrators, editing an article about oneself, even with neutral intent, can be seen as crossing a line in some cases. Genuinely I did not approach this with a promotional mindset, and if that is the way you have perceived it, I do acknowledge that perception, and I may have misjudged how my edits could be interpreted. That said, I take your decision and actions positively and step away from Wikipedia. My humble request is to guide me on how to drop my article permanently from Wikipedia. Rather than being left behind in a way that misrepresents my intentions. Tomsekatwe (talk) 09:53, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Not an unblock request, and you are addressing the previous reviewer. You may make a standard, unformatted comment to just ask a question. I am interpreting your comment as a request to delete the draft, I will do so- this removes it from public view(though it is not "permanently" removed, it remains on the computers but not visible to anyone other than admins). 331dot (talk) 10:25, 4 July 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.

If you want the picture of yourself deleted from Commons, you will need to go there and request it. You probably shouldn't have uploaded it anyway; the copyright of the professionally done photo likely belongs with the photographer, and not you personally(unless you had a contract assigning you the copyright). 331dot (talk) 10:26, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]