User talk:Sammy,kent

Welcome! (We can't say that loud/big enough!)

Hello, Sammy,kent, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date.

If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

Saturn star (talk) 17:07, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Brian Ahumuza

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 Brian Ahumuza requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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 removed 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. Feedthepope (talk) 11:36, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Help me!

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Hi, I've just created an article on Wikipedia but it has been nominated for speed deletion, how can I prevent this?

Sammy,kent (talk) 12:38, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sammy,kent all articles need to be referenced and show Notability, in this case Wikipedia:Notability (people). So you need to add references quickly to stop it being deleted - see Help:Referencing for beginners. However if you would like more time to work on it we can move it to the draft area where you can work on it with less risk of deletion (copyright issues etc still get deleted) until you bring it up to the minimum standards. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 12:44, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Help me!

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I have added references to my article Brian Ahumuza. Please verify the article so that it's not deleted.

Sammy,kent (talk) 16:11, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sammy,kent. I have removed the speedy deletion nomination, because I think the article makes credible claims of significance. That being said, there are other reasons someone else might nominate it for deletion for. Keep working with reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Did this answer your question? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:49, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

August 2016

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. 220 of ^Borg 07:48, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Thank you for your recent contributions to Williams Bugeme. I did have one note for you. I am working on a maintenance project to clean up Category:Pages using infoboxes with thumbnail images. In the future, please do not use thumbnails when adding images to an infobox (see WP:INFOBOXIMAGE). What does this mean? Well in the infobox, when you specify the image you wish to use, instead of doing it like this:

|image=[[File:SomeImage.jpg|thumb|Some image caption]]

Instead just supply the name of the image. So in this case you can simply do:

|image=SomeImage.jpg.

There will then be a separate parameter for the image caption such as |caption=Some image caption. Please note that this is a generic form message I am leaving on your page because you recently added a thumbnail to an infobox. The specific parameters for the image and caption may be different for the infobox you are using! Please consult the Template page for the infobox being used to see better documentation. Thanks!! Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 16:13, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Williams Bugembe (August 20)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SwisterTwister was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

The comment the reviewer left was:

I would not resubmit as there are currently no chances of convincing notability, it's simply too soon.

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 when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Williams Bugembe and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

SwisterTwister talk 06:16, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Douglas Lwanga) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Douglas Lwanga, Sammy,kent!

Wikipedia editor Animalparty just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Note that phrases like "Douglas is also a very skillful graphics designer, and has mastered his knowledge" sound promotional and biased. See WP:PEACOCK for more info on how to write from a neutral point of view.

To reply, leave a comment on Animalparty's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

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).

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

Request reason:

I am new to Wikipedia. My account was blocked because some of my published articles may have sounded promotional which I am willing to change this when the account is unblocked. I guess this is why it may have been suspected to be a sock puppet. I apologize for violating the guidelines and promise not to do this again.

Decline reason:

Actually, you are blocked because of abuse of multiple accounts, not because of promotional writing. However, in addition, all of the articles you have created were blatantly promotional, and if you honestly think that merely "some" of them "may have sounded" promotional then you are so unable to see the nature of your own editing that you are unlikely ever to be able to contribute in the neutral way required for Wikipedia, so for that reason unblocking you would be unlikely to benefit the project. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:55, 4 February 2017 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Thank you JamesBWatson. Indeed you're right. There's no polite way of saying this, my articles have been bluntly promotional and I am truly sorry about that. As pointed out by KrakatoaKatie in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Daniel Kobe Ricks Jr,I was suspected of doing promotional edits that behaviorally match socks used by DKRJ. I am guilty of doing promotional edits and I sincerely apologize to the entire Wikipedia community. I promise to make productive contributions instead. However I am not a sock for DKRJ and if there's a way of proving this, please let me know so that I can, because I'm knew to Wikipedia. I am willing to join Personal acquaintances WikiProject where I can meet other editors to fight this vice. I've learnt a valuable lesson from this block which has given me time to review my editing habits and also taught me not to take Wikipedia for granted. I am only asking you to please give me a chance to grow with this project as I learn from my mistakes.

Decline reason:

Based on CU comment in the section below, it seems completely clear that this account is one of many sockpuppets used for promotional editing. Unblock request is declined, and to prevent the timesink of further unblock requests, talk page access has been revoked. Floquenbeam (talk) 20:09, 24 April 2017 (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.

I'm sorry for the slow response, but given the promotional edits you have made in the past and the sockpuppetry concerns it would likely help if you could explain how you intend to contribute to Wikipedia when you are unblocked. "Making productive contributions" is too vague for me to be comfortable with unblocking you. Huon (talk) 17:25, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Huon and I appreciate your concern. Actually, I do not intend to write any articles after I'm unblocked for a period of six months, you have my word. This is because I've realized that I still have a lot to learn when it comes to Wikipedia editing but rather I would like to supplement on existing articles that have been published by other authors especially those about where I come from here in Uganda to ensure that the right information is being published. I believe that this will help me become a better editor and thus make proper contributions to Wikipedia. I also intend to join the Personal acquaintances WikiProject as a way of reducing on the sock puppetry concerns. With that said, I hope that you can reconsider. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sammy.kent (talk • contribs)

Block/unblock decision

@Huon, JamesBWatson, and KrakatoaKatie: I think we need to deal with this one way or the other, it's been almost a month since their last edit. I'm inclined to decline and remove talk page access, based on the large quantity of socking at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Daniel Kobe Ricks Jr, but an alternate would be a ban on creating new articles and a ban on anything remotely resembling promotional editing. Anyone have a strong preference one way or the other? I note that the original version of the unblock request said "I am not a sock for DKRJ unless there is clear evidence that proves otherwise", which is not a promising thing to hear. But maybe that was an English proficiency thing? --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:04, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I cannot unblock someone who's checkuser-blocked, and if there's technical evidence connecting this account to others, I have yet to see an explanation for it. I'm also rather unimpressed by the vague comments above that do not show what we can expect from this editor once unblocked. Huon (talk) 22:00, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I didn't notice it was a checkuser-block! Katie, any comments? I agree with Huon's concerns; if you're technically very confident this is one of many, many socks, I'll decline and remove talk page access. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:06, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I'm late here. The DKRJ socks are easily recognizable from a technical standpoint, and i just reran it to be sure. Don't unblock him. Katie^talk 12:33, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]