User talk:Fkhaw

June 2022

Hello, I'm GabberFlasted. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to AlphaFold 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. GabberFlasted (talk) 16:39, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for your feedback. I have adjusted my edits. Fkhaw (talk) 20:42, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. [1] MrOllie (talk) 00:01, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did at AlphaFold, you may be blocked from editing. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. MrOllie (talk) 21:51, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of LatchBio

Hello Fkhaw,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged LatchBio for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly indicate why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

DIVINE 21:43, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm unsure why LatchBio's page was deletion-worthy when similar pages, such as DNAnexus' Wikipedia page (a company in a similar space as LatchBio), has been running without being taken down. Fkhaw (talk) 23:18, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Fkhaw. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page LatchBio, 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 organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam#External link spamming);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

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, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 22:18, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 2022

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for adding spam links. Persistent spammers will have their websites blacklisted from Wikipedia and potentially penalized by search engines.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 23:18, 23 June 2022 (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).

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

Request reason:

Your reason here Hi, I'm sorry for any miscommunication or ill intent that has been assumed on my behalf. Over the past couple of months, I've been trying to honestly and genuinely add relevant content to Wikipedia but it seems my edits have always been tagged as spam or unworthy of being permanent. In the past, I added a link to LatchBio on the RNA-Seq and AlphaFold pages because it's the fastest runner of those pipelines- it can be verified as well (I wasn't doing that for promotional activity). I was unclear on why that was declared link spam. Furthermore, my attempt to create a Wikipedia page for LatchBio was not promotional, but outlined based on a similar company's Wikipedia page, DNAnexus. I'm very unclear on where I went wrong and why my account has been blocked, I hope you understand where I am coming from. It was great being part of the Wikipedia community and I'd love to continue to be a contributor if I could clarify my wrongdoings. Thanks for your help and understanding.

Decline reason:

If you do not see what is wrong with edits such as this you need to stay blocked. PhilKnight (talk) 07:36, 24 June 2022 (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.

Fkhaw (talk) 23:28, 23 June 2022 (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).

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

Request reason:

Your reason here Fkhaw (talk) 18:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC) I have reviewed once more my edits and understand that the reason for me being blocked is the result of promotional activity and associating irrelevant links with long-standing webpages preserved to hold no invalid or fishy content. With that being said, I apologize for my suspicious activity and pledge to only create content that is relevant, factual, and unbiased in alignment with the Wikipedia rules.[reply]

Decline reason:

There's little to no chance you'll be unblocked without agreeing to a topic ban on LatchBio and related subjects, and without disclosing the exact nature of your relationship with LatchBio. Yamla (talk) 18:41, 24 June 2022 (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.