The article F102 highway (Nigeria) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No explanation or sources to why this is notable.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification. Chamaemelum (talk) 03:29, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SamX, thanks for your recent work at CCI. If you're wondering about any particular articles, feel free to ask me. I may be able to provide either where I got information from, or tell you if I remember closely paraphrasing or writing from scratch. Not sure if this will be useful, but I'd like to make the CCI as easy as possible for everyone. Chamaemelum (talk) 03:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate it! I'll let you know if I need help with anything. — SamX [talk · contribs] 03:43, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chamaemelum,
Your offer to help out with the CCI is greatly appreciated, and I've decided to take you up on it. I don't have any questions about specific articles yet, but I do have some more general questions that will help me determine the proper strategy for working through your CCI:

• Do you recall ever copying text from one Wikipedia article to another? If so, do you remember which article(s)?
• Is your general approach to writing to write text first and search for sources afterward, or do you search for sources first, then write text based on those sources?
• Have you ever copied or paraphrased text from a source that you didn't end up referencing within the article?
• Editors have raised concerns that you may have been using large language models like ChatGPT to write content. Is this something you've done? If so, what sorts of prompts did you give the LLMs, and how did you integrate the AI-generated content into the articles you edited?

Answering these questions would make my work much easier. I'm pretty busy with university coursework at the moment and your CCI is a fairly complex case compared to some others, so I've been spending time working through simpler cases. Progress on your CCI will probably be slow and incremental, but I'll try my best to get it closed sometime in the next six months or so. Again, I really appreciate your offer to help out.
Thanks, — SamX [talk · contribs] 01:39, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Callitropsis (@SamX),

Sorry for the late response. I've been busy and haven't logged on in a while.

For English Wikipedia before the CCI, I am pretty sure I didn't copy text from one Wikipedia article to another. If I was paraphrasing too closely, it wouldn't have been from an article (I don't use Wikipedia as a source for articles). Since then, it is possible that I copied content as a starting point from English Wikipedia to Simple English Wikipedia. I just checked a few pages and I couldn't find a place where I did this, but it is possible. Either way, it would have been edited heavily for simplification.

I write text based on sources for topics or pages that I am not knowledgable about (types of cheese, roads). For topics I am knowledgable about (science), I usually write text (a statement), then find a source for it, then write the next statement. I can frequently recall sources I've read previously that I can use. A minority of the time, there's a really good source that I use that says everything I want to say, so it might turn into writing based on the source (as it was what I was planning anyway). One example is genetic nurture; if you look at the deletion discussion, you will see that there were copyright issues in early article versions (which were just edits I made in the Wizard "draft" before I published the article, at which point it was taken care of). There may be other articles like that but on a smaller scale; for example, an abstract that I used (Tayside children's sleep questionnaire) when there is not very many sources on the topic.

Pages like this will likely not be close to any sources, and pages like this will likely contain writing closer to sources.

One big tip is that existing pages where I make a lot of edits are very unlikely to be paraphrased at all (and there will be no LLM usage), but pages where I edit in one "chunk" (only one or two edits) are more source-driven and might be paraphrased. For example, I wouldn't expect this page, with lots of edits, to be closely paraphrased

When I've paraphrased, I've always referenced the text unless I somehow got something mixed up. I think my mistake was paraphrasing too closely as opposed to not referencing. This means that if there is a copyright issue, it will almost certainly be for one of the references I've added to the text (as opposed to some random other page).

Please let me know if there are other ways I can assist or if there are other questions. I wish I could go back and fix the edits myself. Chamaemelum (talk) 23:56, 26 April 2024 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Hello, ​​I am requesting an appeal of my site-ban on July 13, 2023. After reflecting on the discussions and feedback provided, I would like to sincerely apologize for the disruption I have caused. It was never my intention to be a detriment to Wikipedia. I admit that I made mistakes in my approach, such as arguing instead of collaborating, and making overly bold edits without proper discussion. I realize that my actions, while well-intentioned, ended up consuming a disproportionate amount of volunteer time and energy.

I’ve internalized the feedback I’ve received. If given another opportunity, I commit to:

1. Slowing down my editing pace and making smaller, incremental changes

2. Promptly dropping disagreements if consensus is not emerging in my favor

3. Focusing intently on collaboration and discussion on talk pages before making substantive edits (or, preferably, just avoiding making edits that might require this)

4. Contributing to less controversial topics to rebuild trust

5. Familiarizing myself with guidelines more before editing

Wikipedia is an incredible and fun project. I want to be a productive contributor, so I’m asking for a second chance to demonstrate that I can contribute positively. I am ready to abide by any extra conditions necessary to allow a return to editing.

The catalyst to this request, though, isn’t a desire to edit pages as usual, but to clean up and fix existing pages I’ve created or edited in the past. (I don’t want to add content; I want to fix my own old edits–though being allowed to edit more broadly would be welcome of course too.) Thank you all for considering. I appreciate it, and I will respect the outcome of this appeal. Chamaemelum (talk) 01:17, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline per your discussion below. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 19:52, 3 June 2024 (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.

As you were banned by a community discussion, there must be a community discussion to remove the ban. Is this the statement you would like transferred to a noticeboard for discussion? 331dot (talk) 09:00, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may also wish to clarify point 4, "Contributing to less controversial topics to rebuild trust". I think this is already a long-shot appeal but I think it has zero chance without you suggesting a WP:TOPICBAN on Aspartame and on alternative medicine, broadly-construed. I think any such topic ban would need to also encompass Alzheimer's disease, so you'll have to think carefully about the wording. Maybe medicine and alternative medicine, broadly construed? Anyway, up to you. This is a non-binding suggestion. --Yamla (talk) 10:57, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information and tips. I am okay with a very restrictive topic ban--I don't plan on revisiting those areas at all.

I'll think about the message I would like to be transferred, and re-write it since this was mostly addressed to the admins. Chamaemelum (talk) 19:28, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Chamaemelum. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "F102 highway".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:04, 5 May 2024 (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 CNMall41 was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

• in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
• reliable
• secondary
• independent of the subject
  

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

The current souring does not show WP:GNG. I did a quick WP:BEFORE and was surprised that there were very few other references. Even the book references I found did not provide anything in-depth about the topic.

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 Draft:Nanterrow 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 or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

CNMall41 (talk) 04:19, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Chamaemelum! 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! CNMall41 (talk) 04:19, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]