Izaaqnewton

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, this user asks you to take precautions: 1. Maintain social distancing by starting new posts in new sections, to avoid contaminating other users. 2. Follow the one-way system by putting new posts at the bottom. 3. Sign your comments to facilitate contact tracing.

This page was last edited or modified by Blablubbs (talk).

Welcome

Hello, Izaaqnewton, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started. Happy editing! Liz Read! Talk! 20:41, 28 August 2020 (UTC) Getting started Introduction Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia Finding your way around Table of contents Directories and indexes Department directory Editing articles How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style Getting help Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Our help forum for new editors, the Teahouse The Help Desk, for more advanced questions Help pages Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles How you can help Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Today is Saturday, 30 November 2024, and the current time is 00:12 (ET). Wikipedia time is 21:12 (UTC).
There are currently 6,917,983 articles and 122,331 active users on English Wikipedia.

Picture of the day

Winston Churchill (30 November 1874 – 24 January 1965) was a British statesman, soldier and writer who served as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from 1940 to 1945, during the Second World War, and again from 1951 to 1955. Apart from 1922 to 1924, he was a member of Parliament from 1900 to 1964, representing five different constituencies. This black-and-white photograph of Churchill, titled The Roaring Lion, was taken on 30 December 1941 by the Armenian-Canadian photographer Yousuf Karsh in the Centre Block on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, Canada. The photograph is particularly noted for Churchill's posture and facial expression, which have been compared to the wartime feelings that prevailed in the United Kingdom – persistence in the face of an all-conquering enemy.Photograph credit: Yousuf Karsh

My edits in English-Wikipedia by namespace as of 20 August 2021

  User talk (primarily CSD notifications) (40.3%)

  User (primarily CSD log) (18%)

  Article (14%)

  Wikipedia (12.7%)

  Categories (10%)

  Other (5%)

Note: When emailing me, please also post a {{You've got mail}} template to this page.

About Draft:Hamis Kiggundu

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Draft:Hamis Kiggundu a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Hamis Kiggundu. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. Fiddle Faddle 20:41, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

If it is your desire that thsi draft become an article, please submit it for review. Note that it has been reviewed before and that work may have been recommended prior to submission. It is important that you declare any relationship that you have with Mr Kiggundu or any of his corporations or business interests, the more so if you are employed by any of those interests. Fiddle Faddle 21:15, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Fiddle Alright thank you for this guidance, I don't have connection, So I should instead clean the draft in a non in a non advertorial manner, just as I had done in a copy paste version and Just submit instead? or I leave until the first author Corrects the mistakes. Regarding relationships, I am not connected in any way but given the fact that the Subject is a very notable guy, with much press coverage, it could be my Privilege since is can use it as reference in future. Izaaqnewton (talk) 10:08, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

@Faddle Should I just leave this and focus on others or? What suggestive advice do you give me in regards to this matter?

Izaaqnewton, keep working on it and submit when you are ready. The prior editor is blocked, so if it is to be it is down to you. Thank you for clarifying that you have no relationship at all. It is important to have done so

I agree that the gentleman is likely to pass our notability threshold. Fiddle Faddle 10:19, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Alright Mr. Fiddle Faddle; in my view, just have to clean and eliminate Some information that i see as promotional and Remove all the external links, as every link was already used in the citations above. This doesn't require much time. Izaaqnewton (talk) 10:27, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Faddle I have finished editing and Submitting. Izaaqnewton (talk) 12:02, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I will not review this draft, considering myself involved, having spent some time advising the blocked creating editor previously. Fiddle Faddle 12:53, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

@Faddle Alright. Be waiting for someone to review it. Thank you Izaaqnewton (talk) 06:19, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Linking to drafts

Please do not introduce links in actual articles to draft articles, as you did to Nakivubo Stadium. Since a draft is not yet ready for the main article space, it is not in shape for ordinary readers, and links from articles should not go to a draft. Such links are contrary to the Manual of Style. An edit has converted these links, into links to the not-currently-existing page (redlinks) where the draft will be placed if it is eventually accepted. Thus the links will automatically become valid links aimed at the correct target when and if the draft is accepted. Thank you. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:55, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@ DES Copy that, let me try looking for Previous edits and check out for corrections. Thank you Izaaqnewton (talk) 06:21, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I was actually thinking of converting to bold non liked words instead of the red links, Just in Case it is the Drafts are rejected because you can't be certain and assured about approval. What is your view on that DES? Izaaqnewton (talk) 06:26, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

In general, we do not boldface names of people or other topic terms, except for the name of the subject of the article, in the first sentence, and not elsewhere. See MOS:BOLD and especially MOS:NOBOLD. Simply removing the link would not be unreasonable, but a redlink is a normal way to indicate that an editor thinks that there ought to be am article about the linked term. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 13:50, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Alright DES Understood, thank you. Will start implementation any possible time when i am back to do more edits. Izaaqnewton (talk) 21:31, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

September 2020

Your account has been blocked indefinitely for advertising or promotion and violating the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use. This is because you have been making promotional edits to topics in which you have an undisclosed financial stake, yet you have failed to adhere to the mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a form of conflict of interest (COI) editing which involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is strictly prohibited. Using this site for advertising or promotion is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia.

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, please read our guide to appealing blocks to understand more about unblock requests, and then add the text {{unblock|reason=your reason here ~~~~}} at the end of your user talk page. For that request to be considered, you must:

• Confirm that you have read and understand the Terms of Use and paid editing disclosure requirements.
• State clearly how you are being compensated for your edits, and describe any affiliation or conflict of interest you might have with the subjects you have written about.
• Describe how you intend to edit such topics in the future. GeneralNotability (talk) 18:19, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

GeneralNotability I first read the Terms, there is no edits that I have made so far for which I was paid Izaaqnewton (talk) 18:48, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

That is it.

However, if you feel that I lose something by declaring COI if at all there's any; then You are free add another block notop of this block, GeneralNotability kindly, block, block and block for as long as you wish. Izaaqnewton (talk) 19:00, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Otherwise, If you think I will be making updates/edits for public benefit and then i start pleading to be unblocked as if there is any benefit I am getting, then you're mistaken GeneralNotability, and Shame upon you GeneralNotability. To hell with that crap Izaaqnewton (talk) 19:05, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

GeneralNotability I first read the Terms, there is no edits that I have made so far for which I was paid Izaaqnewton (talk) 18:48, 4 September 2020 (UTC) That is it.

However, if you feel that I lose something by declaring COI if at all there's any; then You are free add another block notop of this block, GeneralNotability kindly, block, block and block for as long as you wish. Izaaqnewton (talk) 19:00, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Otherwise, If you think I will be making updates/edits for public benefit and then i start pleading to be unblocked as if there is any benefit I am getting, then you're mistaken GeneralNotability, and Shame upon you GeneralNotability. To hell with that crap Izaaqnewton (talk) 19:05, 4 September 2020 (UTC) Izaaqnewton (talk) 19:13, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Izaaqnewton, if you want your block reviewed, you are welcome to follow the directions in the block notice to appeal the block and an uninvolved administrator will review it. GeneralNotability (talk) 20:39, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

GeneralNotability Are there awards for apealing or, Reasonably, What will I get in return after I apeal?????

And before your block, what did i benefit from the edits that i made?????, I guess, you tried save ma from wasting Much if my valuable time here?????

You only forgot to revert the edits and perhaps delete created pages if any, That could Perharps Settle your Troubled heart.. Go on and finish that GeneralNotability and perhaps delete my account too Izaaqnewton (talk) 19:44, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Izaaqnewton, as I said above: if you are going to appeal your block, follow the directions in the block notice. If you continue to edit this talk page without making an unblock request, your ability to edit your talk page will be revoked. GeneralNotability (talk) 23:14, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

GeneralNotability. What are you waiting for???????????? You could have revoked even before the block.......... KINDLY SAVE YOUR ASS! REVOKE and Delete account/user AS SOON AS 72 HOURS AGO.. Izaaqnewton (talk) 21:22, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

If you cannot be civil please remain silent. If you want your block lifted, please appeal in a civil manner. Fiddle Faddle 21:34, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much Faddle but i do not think there is any need for that, especially now, why Apeal?? What REAL benefit will It be to me rather than wasting my precious time researching and making useful edits for the world,  only for someone to unreasonably act rude. Am I a banker? Do I work in any if the edited banks' pages/Articles? Do I work at Ham Enterprises? Do I know anybody there??? What is the use of the internet then? Why should someone force me to lie?  What should I declare and what will I benefit by making false declarations?  What have I even plainly benefited from the made edits so far apart from regretting my stolen time!!!!!!!!!!.

The unrude and unbiased way you advise and guide new editors Trimtent has greatly impercted their experience and love for Wikipedia as well as making Wikipedia a better reference place. Kindly Continue with your selfless efforts, Wiki needs more people like you onboard.

In good faith, GeneralUnreasonableBlockRovoke Should Revok my ability to edit or perhaps perform some other worst action on this user account, by so doing, I won't be able to make any more uncivil edits. And my time will perhaps be diverted elsewhere and final profitably saved Otherwise, unless this account is used by another person except me, No Appeal of any Kind will ever be made.. And for as long as not revoked....Any email notifications I receive in regard to this talk page will always result into more edits here during my free time. Thank you In advance Izaaqnewton (talk) 22:28, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

The benefit to you? It's a hobby, a pastime. If you have enjoyed it hitherto and wish to continue, then you appeal. If you do not wish to appeal then do not appeal. If you have no intention of appealing then simply walk away.

You have been blocked in order to ask you to make a fuller declaration than you have above, about commercial involvement. There are two easy questions and one hard question to answer. Answer them or do not answer them at your discretion, but please do not create great swathes of text impugning the integrity of editors and administrators.

Obviously you are angry. Showing that anger in the way you have done is a behaviour likely to go against you. So please consider what you wish to achieve and then achieve that result with quiet, calm civility after a period of reflection. Fiddle Faddle 06:37, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Hamis Kiggundu has been accepted

Hamis Kiggundu, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

SL93 (talk) 01:59, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Unblock request

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).

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

---

Request reason:

@ GeneralNotability i have been studying and understood the policies and terms of Wikipedia and now very compliant with open guidance, no more future violations are expected from me this times round Izaaqnewton (talk) 05:49, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 12:13, 24 March 2021 (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.

• Comment please will any admin considering this unblock request consider this diff when reaching a conclusion. Note that I have no way of knowing whether the IP editor and the differently spelled signature are the same person, though CU qualified people can consider the matter privately. It might be useful if the requesting editor comments here on the matter. Fiddle Faddle 07:19, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
  • No comment with regard to the checkuser tools. I'll note that I consider the disclosure insufficient for an unblock, even if it was placed by this user and correctly identified the account (which it wasn't and doesn't). Given the undisclosed paid editing, I'd expect this user to refrain from any further paid editing at all, at least until they build up a long history of appropriate edits. --Yamla (talk) 12:13, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I have been misusing Wikipedia for advertising and most times promotion in total violation of the Wikipedia Foundation's Terms of Use by making promotional edits to topics in which i have been paid and some of which i have been expecting financial returns but without adhering to the mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements, i have additionally been evading blocks by creating new accounts and also using workmates accounts to continue with my promotional edits sitll in voilation of the foundation's usage terms. However, i have been reading some of the Wikipedia policies and several guidance from experienced editors and i now have aquate editing knowledge and i will be very compliant to the Wikipedia terms and policies, i have now desisted from copyright infringment editing as i was previous doing it out of ignorance. I will also be Disclosing financial stake as my mandate for edits where there is any financial interests of any kind, i have desisted from use of Multiple accounts, as it is nolonger neccessary, all my paid edits will be submitted through Afc and where necdessary getting help from The Tea House I'm honestly very sorry and very Apologetic for the uncivil way i was replying to admins like GeneralNotability as a result of unneccessary anger, this will not happen again.

So, because i now fully understand why i was blocked in the first place, and the fact that I'm indeed very grateful for having been blocked, as i have resultantly Learnt and understood much: i honestly believe that this block Is nolonger necessary. I will keep making Much more and better useful contributions as i made on Hamis Kiggundu and Success and Failure Based on Reason and Reality this time round as a more: learnt editor with much better Experience and Knowledge. Thank you very Much. as a result of unneccessary anger, this will not happen again.

Izaaqnewton (talk) 20:39, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Your repeated abuse of multiple accounts for spamming means that you are now considered banned by the community per WP:3X. In addition, it also makes it very clear that this request is disingenuous. --Blablubbs (talk) 18:47, 29 September 2021 (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.

Note to reviewing admin user has recently socked over on User talk:Newtonizaaq and per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Izaaqnewton. Lavalizard101 (talk) 19:27, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Blocked for sockpuppetry

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Izaaqnewton. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

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 ~~~~}}.  ~TNT (she/they • talk) 02:07, 26 September 2021 (UTC)