User talk:Celestina007

Archives (Index)

2020/December 2021/January 2021/February 2021/March 2021/April 2021/May 2021/June 2021/July 2021/August 2021/September 2021/October 2021/November 2021/December 2022/January 2022/February 2022/March 2022/April 2022/May 2022/June 2022/July 2022/August 2022/September 2022/October 2022/November 2022/December 2023/January 2023/March 2023/May 2023/June 2023/August 2023/September 2023/December 2024/July 2024/August

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Merry Christmas

	Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021!
	Dear Celestina007, warm wishes to you and your family throughout the holiday season. May your heart and home be filled with all of the joys the festive season brings. Here is a toast to a Merry Christmas and prosperous New Year!. scope_creepTalk 11:07, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy New Year

	Happy new year 2021 !
	Wish you a great New Year! Thanks and best regards RV (talk) 06:12, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Help needed on another not notable article

Hi Celestina007, I came across this article some months ago, I didn't pay attention to it until now. Kwame Baah (musician). 1. it looks like the article was actually created by the subject in the article. 2. The subject does not meet Wikipedia's notability tag, From what I noticed because the subject in question is a so called ''Digital Marketting Expert'', I have a feeling this article was to get him popular or something. Kindly have a look at it for me. thanks. and thanks gain for the previous help. Ampimd (talk) 02:12, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

@Ampimd, yes, it is definitely a non notable autobiography and once again I can’t seem to fathom how a blatant self promotional article has been on mainspace for three years. I’ve sent it to AFD, thanks for making another nab. Celestina007 (talk) 12:46, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Many thanks for your advice! CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:08, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

@CommanderWaterford, anytime, thanks also for listening I was pissed at something recently and it took the advice given to me by Timtrent, to realize my own shortcomings. The advice they gave me was the same advice I gave you. Thanks for your contributions. Stay safe. Celestina007 (talk) 14:14, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

@CommanderWaterford and Celestina, the giving of advice is the easy part. The truly hard part is to take a pause, understand the advice, pause again and then accept or reject it with a good heart. The fundamental part is the pause.

We all need to remember, yes, me too, that nothing, repeat nothing, is ever urgent on Wikipedia. This is especially true when we are committed emotionally to a position. And this is true whether we are right or wrong.

Not all advice is good. Some is absolute rubbish. The pause gives us time to breathe, time to think, time to be our best selves Fiddle Faddle 14:23, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Well spoken and very much apt! Celestina007 (talk) 15:01, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Elijah Onyeagba

Thank you for the edit and suggestions that have been for additional sources on my article. I wish to source for more sources to meet the criteria as you have indicated. Kindly endeavor to notify me any other suggestions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Torksimlife (talk • contribs) 08:11, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

@Jimfbleak already told you here all there is to be said & if you aren’t listening to them it’s very unlikely that you would listen to me. Celestina007 (talk) 09:50, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

why is this page

what is wrong in this article im going to improve itHardyisback11188 (talk) 07:12, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Ummm what page? Celestina007 (talk) 11:06, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Request to edit and publish the Draft: Wale Adetona

Hi [[1]], can you please review the page again [[2]]? I do not know the subject personally but he has done tremendous work and deem as a notable personality.

@Islimfit, except it’s an indefinite block from editing here ever again you are seeking for, you’d be wise to cease and desist from sock puppetry. Celestina007 (talk) 09:10, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

@Celestina007, excuse you? What are you talking about? And why so condescending and rude with your choice of words?

@Islimfit, start by reading WP:SIGN and learn to do so in order to make other editors follow the conversation with ease, what you are currently doing by editing with multiple accounts isn’t permitted here, if you refuse to comply and continue, you would get blocked & that’s a factual statement. I wouldn’t warn you again. Celestina007 (talk) 09:20, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

@Celestina007 Okay o. I thought the whole essence of this talk page is to provide help and not threat! I ask again, what suggestions do you have for the page to be published? What words or sections do you suggest to be removed?

@Islimfit, The sheer fact that I just told you to read sign and learn to do so but didn’t bother to shows you aren’t here to build an encyclopedia but to promote yourself, let’s do a quick re-cap, thus far you have created a promotional autobiography, created a sock account (Omokstee) to tell me rubbish, vandalized my userpage and now you are still asking & pushing for your autobiographical non notable article to be published shows you clearly are in violation of WP:NOTHERE. That you’d be blocked if you continue at this rate isn’t a threat but an eventuality. Celestina007 (talk) 09:41, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

@Celestina007, created a sock account to tell you rubbish? C'mon man. Tone down on your choice of words. We learn every day and which I am open to, as indicated in my previous request to suggest ways on improving the article. But your tone and choice of words aren't helping. I doubt if you'd be here if people had behaved the same way to you.

@Islimfit, I see I’m wasting my time here. In summary, there’s no universe in which a non notable autobiography created by a SPA would ever be published on Wikipedia, not now, not ever. Goodbye. Celestina007 (talk) 09:55, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

• For any editor reading this, it was a hunch then i made an official SPI requesting a Checkuser, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Islimfit, which shows they indeed are confirmed to be engaged in sockpuppetry. Celestina007 (talk) 16:35, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

We're in the news!

Hi Celestina. I thought you might be interested in this and this. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:33, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

@Curb Safe Charmer, yeah I kinda saw it on the Twitter trend table yesterday, & tbh there’s no way on God's green earth that man(Bola Tinubu) is 69. In-fact, he’s closer to 80 but since we are about verifiability and not truth, all I can do is sit back and laugh. Celestina007 (talk) 19:07, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

FaStest shedder

Is this article significantly similar to the previous ones? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:26, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

@Spiderone, hello there, in actuality, I don’t think the article has ever been deleted via an AFD in the past, it has been created thrice now and the first time it was deleted via G12, the second iteration was sent to draftspace and so will this current iteration be treated. The Fastest shedder is a program conducted by Seyi Olusore who is either one & the same person as the article creator (Nda64rc) or is accepting financial rewards from them. Their userpage tells the whole story. I have left a final warning on their tp. They definitely aren’t here to build an encyclopedia and how they have successfully been evading scrutiny beats me. Celestina007 (talk) 13:31, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

It might be worth an ANI after their next offence. This absolutely stinks of UPE. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:16, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Nikhil Raut

I have been watching this artist’s film for the last seven years... And I've been reading the newspaper for a long time and I've gathered information about this person... In the case of this person, people share misinformation on social media... I created this Wikipedia page to let people know the truth... My only purpose is to let people know the truth Chatarpatar2020 (talk) 06:47, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

I asked you a question on your talk page but you reply on mine & totally evade the question. Go back to your talk page, read the question, read why the article was sent back to draftspace, to be specific read both WP:COI & WP:UPE, when you think you understand my question, you may reply accordingly on your talk page where the question was asked. Celestina007 (talk) 12:01, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Okay.Chatarpatar2020 (talk) 12:04, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

An item for your watchlist

Knowing that you also find paid editors who exhibit a refusal to learn or hit the ground running to be irksome, I wonder if you would consider watching Draft:Jason Blazakis. I declined it again today, but I think my offering it a fourth review should it be submitted again in the awful state it's in would be counter-productive Fiddle Faddle 09:18, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@Timtrent, got you! Celestina007 (talk) 19:03, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

The editor goes away for a few days, presumably thinking we may forget all about it. I wasn't too harsh there, I hope. Fiddle Faddle 19:10, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@Timtrent, nahhh, everything you told them were factual. Celestina007 (talk) 19:26, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Haruna Sentongo

Hello Celestina007, i have made edits on Haruna Sentongo with great hope of remedying the article deletion, i am kindly requesting for your Expert Review and proposal of essential extra edits required. Thank you. Ibitukirire (talk) 03:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

look, except it’s a block for covert UPE you are seeking, I’d suggest you back off while you can. Celestina007 (talk) 23:18, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I already backed off and forgot all about that bro, but a great experience and many lessons for me, thank you. Ibitukirire (talk) 00:25, 9 April 2021 (UTC)Bold text

Victor Ike

Hi Celestina007, I noticed that my submission was rejected by you. Can you please go through CommanderWaterford recommendations (Guidelines on the notability of music-related topics) for the subject matter? kindly check other Nigerian- European artist's Wikipedia like Ayo, Lemar, and more, and advise how you think it's for promotional purposes? Will appreciate, your kind advice and if you can develop the subject matter topic to meet the Wikipedia requirement, that will be excellent. The subject matter has worked and featured with Hollywood stars like DMX Victor Ike - Baby. feat. DMX and more, and on the basis mentioned above, he definitely deserves to be on Wikipedia. except there is politics behind the rejection which needs to be dialogued.

@Nextprod, first read WP:SIGN and learn to do so. Secondly, I suggest you discontinue article creation until you take a look at WP:YFA. Finally, I’m trying to be as polite as can be here, but just what do you mean by “politics behind the rejection which needs to be dialogued”? Lest i forget, I removed this from the article because that is borderline spamming, see WP:NOSOCIAL as well. Celestina007 (talk) 14:47, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:ANI

Hello. An ANI discussion has opened in which you are mentioned. You are welcome to take part if you wish to do so. Thanks very much. No Great Shaker (talk) 17:27, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Revdel helper

In your common.js page add this line:

importScript( 'User:Enterprisey/cv-revdel.js' ); // Backlink: [[User:Enterprisey/cv-revdel.js]]

The revdel item should show up in your more tab Fiddle Faddle 20:46, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

@Timtrent, thanks dear friend. Celestina007 (talk) 21:07, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

A further antennae twitch

We have an editor who seems to be very insisted in creating an article on one Randall Goodden, shown by

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/A_Flaneur
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/A_Flaneur

Every file has been deleted on Commons, and I've been concerned about their COI here, which they declare not to have. But my antennae are twitching. I wonder if you would mind keeping an eye on this. I seem to be the only one concerned right now Fiddle Faddle 20:44, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

@Timtrent, I’ve added them to my watchlist and if they continue down this path, it’s only right to label them as an WP:SPA & if that’s the case then it’s an indef block that would invariably be their portion. Celestina007 (talk) 22:03, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

You might have a look at my latest message in their talk page, and let me know what yiu thunk. Or let them know Fiddle Faddle 22:05, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

@Timtrent, it appears to be a case of AUTO. They are definitely writing about themselves. I guess now I have added them to my watchlist the article of theirs would never be published on mainspace except they are completely honest and disclose their COI accordingly. Celestina007 (talk) 22:36, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

It also interests me that they are inconsistent, with two diametrically opposite statements. The draft is appalling and the sandbox worse. Ah well, time for sleep Fiddle Faddle 22:39, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

@Timtrent, i agree, & the good news is if they continue to double down they’d eventually get what’s coming their way. Celestina007 (talk) 23:33, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

They doubled down in a very unexpected manner 😳 Fiddle Faddle 16:18, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

@Timtrent, I’m not sure what to make of them. They just shot themself/themselves(because there’s no telling how many individuals optimize that account ) with what they just stated. Celestina007 (talk) 00:23, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I know what to make of them in a human sense. In a Wikipedia rules sense that is a different matter Fiddle Faddle 07:33, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I think my talk page shows a resolution. I shall certainly not review the draft again! Fiddle Faddle 16:05, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I posted at the AFC talk page. Up to you what you do with it Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 20:30, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I think it's worth waiting for another reviewer and just watching and waiting Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 21:06, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

@Timtrent, Im going to address that right away, Celestina007 (talk) 21:15, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar

Hi, i just rode your dialouge in the teahouse about the time someone has to wait for his article to be reviewed. Could you do me the favour and review my article as well? I don't have to match any deadline or something, its just that I'm working on this article quite a while now and i would be happy when its launched. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:European_Jewish_Community_Center_/_EJCC Leonard Winder (talk) 14:11, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

for starters it appears you haven’t even submitted the draft for review, secondly I do not do reviews on request except it’s an exceptional circumstance, I’m afraid I can’t be of help to you but there are other editors who are open to this and would be willing to assist you. You may continue to seek guidance at the WP:TEAHOUSE or at the WP:HELPDESK. Celestina007 (talk) 00:11, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

UPE scams

One of the UPE scams is to AfD an article, then contact the subject and offer help for a fee. When it closes Keep (faster the better) you take the fee. AKA extortion. The nom of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gustavo S. Oderich is under suspicion on this though there is no determination. was blocked today for this extortionist activity. -- GreenC 18:26, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

@GreenC, yes! In-fact, there was a similar case pertaining to a now blocked experienced Nigerian editor who specialized in this. At that point they were the head of the Nigerian UPE ring. See this. They specialized in AFD'ing articles then contacting the subject of the article and requesting fees to “protect” their article. Celestina007 (talk) 00:02, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

My research indicates the socks in the more recent case have knowledge of India and Sri Lanka. However as your page says, those countries and Nigeria are hot spots for this sort of activity. They may even work together through off-site coordination. I'm glad to see more aggressive action being taken because as you say, if it smells bad it probably is. Would like to see AfD reformed, example nominations only by approved editors the same way AWB works. Or noms go through an approval processes similar to AfC. -- GreenC 01:29, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

@GreenC, indeed, save for MER-C, and a small bunch of other sysops there isn’t much help for editors like ourselves constantly battling the cancer called UPE. That AFD needs reformation is very much true. Celestina007 (talk) 01:51, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Keep up the work!

Hey there, just wanted to come here and say that I appreciate your effort to act against paid editing. I am also an user who is strictly against paid editing. I dont have any problem if an article is created for an UP by keeping our policies and guidleines striclty. But it is very rare I think. You are really doing a pretty job at AFD, by throwing away some thrashes from this encyclopedia. My main mission is also something like that. Now I am regularly watching over the newly created India related articles. Keep up your work and I have my full support for you. By the way, I have tried a lot of methods including new pages feed to monitor new articles. But is there any other option available to exclusively filter an article based on its topic/associated projcets. Regards Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 23:45, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

@Kashmorwiki, thanks for the kind words, I appreciate them. I have also noticed your participations in AFD's and your brilliant rationales for either !voting a keep or delete. Pertaining your question, I’m unsure if there any filters as such. I checked for the existing filters and was unable to locate anyone matching your requirements. @Barkeep49 could you chip in here if you don’t mind? Celestina007 (talk) 00:09, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

@Kashmorwiki you might be looking for something like User:SDZeroBot/NPP sorting? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:10, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

A call to engage in character assasination

There is now a Wikipedia administrators notice board discussion where someone has called for people to try to publish character assasination pieces against me in reliable publications. This is pared with an accusing me of engaging in "sexism" because of things that happened 8 years ago, that were really a result of misunderstanding the complex categorization system and the at times contradictory rules it involves. I will admit I was unwise in going to far in allusions about grandfathering. On the other hand, the fact that the reaction to deletion request for 14 year old articles was to call for speedy keep of all the article is and of itself a very frustrating sign of people being unwilling to engage in the process of contributing to Wikipedia at all. It is so unbalanced. Those in favor of keeping articles are held to virtually no standards on creation, yet those who want to make Wikipedia a better place by removing articles that do not in any way meet inclusion criteria face a constant process of at every turn facing more and more and more obstancles to participation. The current view seems to be that the minimum length of a deletion nomination is far larger than a minumum length of an article, that it is ok to create articles with no sources, but to nominate them for deletion you have to review all possible sources in multiple databases. Beyond this to nominate them for deletion you need to do a minimum of 4 edits, while creation is done with one, and deletion takes a minimum of one week while there is no delay in creation at all. Except for those of us who try to do the right thing and take an article through AfC. In that case we can wait over 2 months to have any response at all. This is very frustrating to me. I wish I had not gone for such allusions to grandfathering, but it is frustrating how long it take to get even non-sourced articles inproved or removed. This whole process is getting very frustrating, and there seems to be no way to actually get my vgoice heard on it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:40, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

@Johnpacklambert, I didn’t bother reading the whole thread at the ANI because I know once a thread is about you everyone suddenly has an opinion or a worthless proposal.

I’m aware of the 8 year ago incident and if editors are still bringing it up in 2021 then it’s indicative of their horrible personality.

If you want changes to how our current AFD is structured or if you want all new articles to “pass through AFC” (assuming that’s what you meant and not “pass through AFD”) as you may have erroneously typed then the best way to get your voice heard is to start an WP:RFC to that effect. Celestina007 (talk) 15:17, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I meant to put AfC. I think I did open an RfC on it. It was shot down pretty hard, but no one has really considered the merits, they just reject it out of turn. Some days I think I should close down this account and open a new one. Then at least people would stop hounding me about things that happened years ago. I know that is officially discouraged, but not holding people to using their real names opens those of us who do up to some very vicious attacks.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:52, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

@Johnpacklambert, no please don’t. You have endured so far & backing out now doesn’t seem proper, if the ANI starts a proposal intended to limit your editing skills it would invariably fail. Celestina007 (talk) 16:05, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I am just burned to the core by this one. I hope Coin has not been scared away forever. He clearly was trying to apply verrifiability, and this lead to a true attack.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:42, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment Now they want to impose the absurdly low limit of 20 AfD nominations a day. This is just plain absurd.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:28, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

@Johnpacklambert, don’t you worry it would fail. Celestina007 (talk) 22:16, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

wish I believed that. It now has 5 supporters and only 4 opposes. I really am worn out by this whole process.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:23, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

@Johnpacklambert, even if it were to sail through which I believe it wouldn’t you could always appeal. Celestina007 (talk) 22:27, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't know. If it goes through I have half a mind to quite Wikipedia forever.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

@Johnpacklambert, that is exactly what they intend to achieve & you mustn’t give them that satisfaction. Celestina007 (talk) 00:14, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

For taking the words today just right out of my mouth... CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:44, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

@CommanderWaterford,I admit my bias towards @Johnpacklambert & would almost always support and stand by him no matter what they claim he has done, but it is appalling the manner in which he is treated. I don’t know why he is being subjected to such ridicule every year, someone even went as far as bringing up the fact that he is autistic, I suffer from aggressive acromegaly(gigantism) I grow tall rapidly and I hope someone won’t use that against me in future. Celestina007 (talk)|

General thoughts

I am so fed up with how some Wikipedia rules operate. There are so many cases where people fail to add sources even when they are brought up in AfD.

I am also so frustrated about the failure of keeping anything like reasonable limits on the proliferation of categories. Sometimes I think I am getting to frustrated.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:14, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Tech News: 2021-16

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

• Email to the Wikimedia wikis are handled by groups of Wikimedia editors. These volunteer response teams now use Znuny instead of OTRS. The functions and interface remain the same. The volunteer administrators will give more details about the next steps soon. [3][4]
• If you use syntax highlighting, you can see line numbers in the 2010 and 2017 wikitext editors when editing templates. This is to make it easier to see line breaks or talk about specific lines. Line numbers will soon come to all namespaces. [5][6][7]
• Because of a technical change there could be problems with gadgets and scripts that have an edit summary area that looks similar to this one. If they look strange they should use mw.loader.using('mediawiki.action.edit.styles') to go back to how they looked before. [8]
• The latest version of MediaWiki came to the Wikimedia wikis last week. There was no Tech News issue last week.

Changes later this week

• There is no new MediaWiki version this week.

Future changes

• The user group oversight will be renamed suppress. This is for technical reasons. This is the technical name. It doesn't affect what you call the editors with this user right on your wiki. This is planned to happen in two weeks. You can comment in Phabricator if you have objections.

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

16:47, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

A second opinion, from someone I'm happy to disagree with

Hey, Celestina. Fair's fair. We know we each think the other does good work even if we have ideological disagreements. I've encountered an article on a Nigerian figure where I'm interested in seeking an opinion from someone who both knows quite a bit more than I do about Nigerian source assessment and who's more likely to skew 'not notable' than I.

I was patrolling CAT:G11 when I encountered the article Bakare Mubarak, which wasn't in good shape, but the amount of sigcov cited made me pause. I removed the tag before stubbing it into a shape that, while not exactly FA status, is at least not G11 eligible, while keeping the cites to allow policy-compliant expansion. I'm unsure how to assess the reliability of the cited sources, though, and am inclined to think I might err both too high and too low at different points. The sources that had Wikipedia articles of their own looked okay, but we both know how articles for organizations don't always match the reality, you know? I'd be happy if you could take a look at this (including the old version, which had a couple more sources omitted here) and see if this represents a GNG pass. Vaticidalprophet 15:34, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

@Vaticidalprophet, hello, it’s an interesting one, whilst I can definitely see at least WP:3REFS that are solid discussing the subject, they all however predominantly reference his height. The first version was definitely an advert but I don’t necessarily agree that it’s G11 eligible either. G11's apply to only irredeemably promotional content so I agree with the route you took. As to their notability status, at best I’d place it at BARE. Celestina007 (talk) 20:27, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Message from CommanderWaterford

Hmmm.... Munaf Kapadia ? CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:32, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

CommanderWaterford, are you asking my take on the notability status of the article? If yes, then I’d say they barely do. WP:NAUTHOR/WP:POET are very tricky. Celestina007 (talk) 17:45, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Igwe 2pac

Hello Celestina007, thank you for reviewing the draft article on Igwe 2pac. I see you raised notability concerns. In addition to this and this, I've added these sources 1 2 3 to show that the WP:GNG is met. This source also shows that he meets WP:ENT#2. I will also like to know why you made this edit labelling them 'inconsequential' because per WP:FILMOGRAPHY, references may be used in the filmography section. I have resubmitted the article and will appreciate if you leave it to an uninvolved reviewer. Thanks. The Sokks💕 ^_(talk) 19:23, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

@TheSokks, not quite. They are an actor but do not satisfy any criterion from NACTOR and if your argument is that they have a cult following thus they are notable then that is a flawed argument as a cult following is very much relative. I removed those sources adjacent the films they have featured in because that is a text book case of ref bombing to create a mirage of notability. They an actor who have not significantly taken up lead roles in the movies they have featured in, neither have they won any notable awards thus as an actor they aren’t notable. I also noticed you utilized pulse.ng severally in the article which isn’t exactly a reliable source. I am going ahead to decline the article until you can prove via reliable sources how they satisfy NACTOR. Furthermore see WP:SIGCOV which the subject of the draft article certainly doesn’t seem to have. Celestina007 (talk) 20:11, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Dear Celestina007, You've comfortably left out the "Large fanbase" bit which this demonstrates that he still passes WP:ENT#2. Asides the pulse.ng (which is not an unreliable source btw), you've failed to address the other (12 3) sources highlighted which means that he meets SIGCOV as they are not mere mentions of the subject and is why I asked that you leave it to an uninvolved editor. Please leave it for a fresh pair of eyes. Thanks. The Sokks💕 ^_(talk) 21:07, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

@TheSokks, hello there, please do not use ”dear” when starting a conversation with me as it implies intimacy.

Now the first link you provided in your efforts to demonstrate they satisfy WP:SIGCOV is to my userpage, which is beyond weird, the second is anything but significant coverage, and the third is the same as the second as both do not constitute significant coverage. They simply aren’t notable and at best this is WP:BARE. Pulse.ng is not a reliable source as they fail to disclose when an article is a sponsored post or not. Please like I earlier stated do not resubmit an article immediately it was declined. You may want to read up on what constitutes WP:SIGCOV. Finally a large fan base like I stated is hopelessly useless when determining notability, anyone can buy followers on Twitter or Instagram. Look! hopefully, this would be final response to you, please do not inundate nor irritate me. Celestina007 (talk) 21:31, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Celestina007, apologies I meant to provide this link. Pulse DOES signify sponsored posts as can be seen here, here and here. Having a large fanbase is clearly stated in WP:ENT#2 which is policy so I don't understand how you can assert that a large fan base like I stated is hopelessly useless when determining notability. What is important is that it is Verifiable. The Sokks💕 ^_(talk) 22:20, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

@TheSokks, Pulse.ng selectively does declare a post sponsored and more often than not they do not thus making it unreliable, or one of those sources you use cautiously. Having a large follower-ship doesn’t translate to notability, that you don’t understand this is evident you may understand how GNG works.

That Nigerian celebrities buy followers has been documented extensively by the media see here,here, and most imperative see here, I can go on and on but by now you should get the drift, so when I call having a large fan base hopelessly useless in establishing notability especially for Nigerians, (A country I have lived in for 20+ years and have become a citizen of btw ) I have a justified reason. By WP:GNG standards the subject of your draft article is lacking, by NACTOR standards they also fall short. So I’m not sure I understand your argument here. Might remind you that internet fame or real life popularity isn’t one and the same as notability. For a biographical article to be considered notable, the subject matter of the article has to be exceptional, you have to explain how or why they are notable. Celestina007 (talk) 21:31, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 April 2021

• From the editor: A change is gonna come

• Disinformation report: Paid editing by a former head of state's business enterprise

• In the media: Fernando, governance, and rugby

• Opinion: The (Universal) Code of Conduct

• Op-Ed: A Little Fun Goes A Long Way

• Changing the world: The reach of protest images on Wikipedia

• Recent research: Quality of aquatic and anatomical articles

• Traffic report: The verdict is guilty, guilty, guilty

• News from Wiki Education: Encouraging professional physicists to engage in outreach on Wikipedia

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:29, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

The ANI is still open

The ANI against me is still open. This has become unreasonably wrong. Now there is a proposal to 100% ban me from any participation in AfD. This is getting more and more unreasonable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:06, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

@Johnpacklambert, which I wouldn’t let happen so help me God. Celestina007 (talk) 13:10, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

@Johnpacklambert and Celestina007: I was so happy when I went to see that it was closed. Thank the universe and thank you, also, Celestina. It should have been closed long before I even said anything. --ARoseWolf 14:17, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

@Tsistunagiska, yes! I was very much happy to see a bold sysop do the needful. I’m very much conservative about ANI’s unless it’s the last option, asides that, I view regular editors who stalk ANI’s and jump on all threads to air their opinions as fame hunters and nothing more. Similar to people who frequent Jimbo's tp. Celestina007 (talk) 18:17, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Coty Hernández

Hello Celeste, what happened to my article about the Argentine singer Coty Hernández? has valid references

@‎Julian Aristiqui, beats me. Furthermore, please always WP:SIGN, which you must learn as a matter of necessity. Celestina007 (talk) 22:23, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

If you are referring to Draft:Coty Hernández, for starters, it met WP:DRAFTIFY, secondly, it was declined at AFC by CommanderWaterford, who you should be talking to and not me. Celestina007 (talk) 18:34, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

@Julian Aristiqui Your article had been moved to draft by Celestina and I declined the submission because your subject does not meet sufficient notability per Wikipedia:NMUSICIAN for having an article here. CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:41, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Stubs

Why? They meet notability guidelines. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 16:01, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

@QatarStarsLeague, if they are is not my point & never was, re-read the message on your tp and you’d see that never did I ever mention notability. My point is they are unsuitable for mainspace, you cant binge create or churn out articles with one source and expect them to remain on mainspace. That’s why a Draftspace or sandbox exists. Celestina007 (talk) 16:10, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

• • The point of bringing redlinks into the mainspace is to encourage further additions. This is why no one else has ever suggested these articles be moved to draftspace. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 16:12, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

I don’t think I understand what you are trying to imply but like I said, churning out cookie-cutter stubs and including just one source(an unreliable one I might add) is not suitable for mainspace/mainspace worthy, If you don’t understand this, I see no point of this dialogue. Celestina007 (talk) 16:20, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

MOS

Hi. I am updating an old article (Douglas Wright (murderer)), do you think it should be renamed to Douglas Wright (serial killer)? Or possibly Douglas Franklin Wright? Or leave as it is? Thank you. Inexpiable (talk) 09:18, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

@Inexpiable, sorry, for the late response. So basically when naming an article you want it to be a recognizable common name. I don’t know much about the article's history and neither did I really have the time to check but it seems to have been redirected from Douglas Franklin Wright which was its original title to this current one Douglas Wright (murderer), I did a brief google search on the name Douglas Franklin Wright and it is my opinion that, that was the most appropriate title as a search under the aforementioned name seems to be the most recognizable. I hope this helps. If you wish to contest the current title you may do so at the tp of the article or communicate directly to whoever did the renaming, if an understanding or compromise can’t be reached, an WP:RM may be evoked. Celestina007 (talk) 00:38, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Questions on WP:NMEDIA

I am here with more questions. You should have never explained WP:BASIC so well. So it's on you now. Ok. My question is, for newspapers, magazines and journals, criteria 4 says are frequently cited by other reliable sources.

• My mind that constantly wants to quantify everything, asks the same question - how many times they should be cited by other reliable sources? Like the introduction of this essay itself says, media doesn't report on itself...
• By this we mean outside wikipedia, right?
• What does it mean cite here? Means they should say as reported by or simply talk about the subject in question?
• What are the reliable sources here? Does same policy apply that there should be editorial oversight etc?

Another question, any news website that doesn't have a print version, it won't count in WP:NMEDIA?

Thanks! Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:14, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

@Nomadicghumakkad, Thanks. I appreciate the compliment which I presume is related to the Teahouse question you asked and response I gave, Ha! I studied under Barkeep49 which imo is as tough as an RFA.

Okay, to answer your questions, NMEDIA basically tries to mirror GNG on a fundamental level but has additional criteria if when met may or may not be considered notable. As per your first question: When NMEDIA talks about cite it definitely means off wiki. As per your second question, Yes! some outlets report incidents and boldly indicate that part of the material they used came from another superior media outlet (usually a renowned very reliable one). Per your third question, a reliable source must possess both editorial oversight and a reputation for fact checking(there’s no circumnavigating that) Per you last question NMEDIA mainly refers to traditional media. In the back of your mind should be this: In summary, and all criterion aside, a media outlet is considered notable chiefly if they satisfy our general notability criteria. Celestina007 (talk) 18:41, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Hey Celestina007, thank you for this explanation. This definitely helps. It helped me review Draft:Gaon Dastak that I was stuck at for long time. What I sort of understand (and also conclude on my own) is that by cite it can't be trivial mention. Either it should credit for some fact or reporting or should discuss it or talk about it. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:07, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Olufunke Adekoya

Hi Celestina007, thank you for your work in the community. I noticed that the article on Olufunke Adekoya is still in draft one month after the article was created and after your earlier concerns about the article was addressed. Please could you be so nice as to help review the article? I believe the article, in its current form, meets Wikipedia eligibility requirements. I would also welcome your contributions to the article if you think the article still need some improvements. Thanks for all times. Omorodion1 (talk) 15:40, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

@Omorodion1, I’m just returning from work. Give me little time to take a look at the draft article and get back to you. Celestina007 (talk) 18:38, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

@Omorodion1, unfortunately I still do not see the problems as addressed the sources are a serious mess, I did a little MOS related work on the article but MOS is not even the problem. The sources are! Start by removing every unreliable source in that article and just include the best three or four you can find. Do not use sources which are dependent on her or have a COI with her, do not use user generated sources, that is, sources she conjured or created her self. I must confess also that I’m biased about this article because it appears she works for an organization that paid UPE editors severally for an article on them, so I’m leaving this to another AFC reviewer without this knowledge I possess to review the article based on its own merits, but that aside, just like I stated start with removing all unreliable sources. Celestina007 (talk) 18:53, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Celestina007 for your time and recommendation. I will revisit the sources again at the earliest possible time and hope a reviewer finds time to review the page. regards. Omorodion1 (talk) 19:02, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

@Omorodion1, a good choice. Hell! I may choose to overlook my prejudice insofar as You can get at least three good sources which aren’t sponsored posts, have editorial oversight and a reputation for fact checking. You may use this for guidance but that doesn’t reflect community consensus but are my standards all the same. If you can fix the sources problem you may ping me to have a third look and I’d be willing to. Celestina007 (talk) 19:10, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Message from Tosin Opaleke

Hello Celestina, I saw that you nominated for speedy deletion an article I created less than 24 hours ago. That was the first draft that was published and I was waiting for critiques on it so as to improve the article. Furthermore, I would like to categorically state that I am not being compensated to write the article.

How do I get the page draft back please so I can improve on it?

--Tosinopaleke (talk) 08:54, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@Tosinopaleke, hello, if you are unsure of your editing skills or knowledge of policy, moving forward, you may want to consider using the WP:AFC method to create articles. Furthermore you are allowed to test your editing skills and try out new stuff in your sandbox. I forgot to mention earlier, reading how to create my first article decently would also prove pivotal. Do not also forget to read WP:PAID and endeavor to tell us if or not you are accepting financial rewards for creating specific articles. Thank you for your time. Celestina007 (talk) 23:14, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Drafts

Hello, Celestina007,

I noticed reviewing User:JJMC89 bot/report/Draftifications/daily that several articles you moved into Draft space had just been recreated in main space. Does AFC have a policy about what to do when this happens? Although User:Abdul Tanko originally created the articles, User:Clarissagum recreated them. I posted a note on Clarissagum's user talk page but I don't know if this is a sign of coordination, sockpuppetry or just an active WikiProject. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:46, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello Liz, and thanks for stopping by. Both editors as well as most Nigerian editors are currently in a competition and the goal of that competition is to see who creates the most articles(pertaining to gubernatorial elections) I doubt this is off wiki coordination or anything of that nature. In my opinion it’s more of an opportunist sort of behavior. I feel User:Clarissagum saw that most of the articles created by User:Abdul Tanko were being draftified due to the fact that User:Abdul Tanko mass created several unsourced articles. In my opinion i feel like User:Clarissagum hijacked their draft articles via cut and paste, included sources to the article and then published the article thus making it their own article. This is not sock or meat puppetry as far as i am concerned. Hope I was able to be of help.Celestina007 (talk) 02:26, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, this would also explain all of the red link categories that pertain to Nigerian gubernatorial elections that have been popping up on Special:WantedCategories for the past couple of weeks. I thought we just had a very active editor with a very particular interest in elections. Should the new version also be moved into Draft space? The only time I've seen this happen before is with competing editors creating multiple articles on upcoming movies. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:03, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@Liz, if the hijacked articles are better improved(that is they now have RS included in them) I see no justification for draftifying any longer. I’d just leave a template warning on hijacking of articles on the tp of the editor that hijacked the article. Celestina007 (talk) 16:23, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Gyidi

Hello I hope I can ask for an independent review of this article as always. I came across this Gyidi article. It seems promotional, and subject in the article doesn't meet the Wikipedia notability tag with regards to WP:GNG Or notable with singers, actors.....entertainers. Article seems to have stayed on for a while. Kindly have a look at it for me. Ampimd (talk) 15:58, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Believe (Gyidi EP) all references from here too are dead ends. Interesting one. Ampimd (talk) 16:00, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@Ampimd, it is definitely conflict of interest editing, possibly undisclosed paid I didn’t bother checking the identity of the article creator but whoever it is has moderate knowledge on how to make UPE look like legit work. I’m going ahead to strip it of all unreliable sources as well as the promotional content in the article after which I’m sending it to AFD. Thanks for bringing this to me. Celestina007 (talk) 16:10, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@Ampimd, it may interest you to know that I have nominated the article for deletion see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gyidi. If you find anymore articles pertaining to Africans which you think are dubious, you may as usual bring it to my notice. Celestina007 (talk) 22:12, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Mohammed Aminu Baka shouldn't be in AfD

Hi, Celestina007. The above-mentioned article is not mere a page about a mere non-notable governorship aspirant as you thought. It is about a notable philantropist whose life and bio is newsworthy to this great encyclopedia. After the article got nominated for deletion, I have restructured it with more worthy informations backed with reliable sources. With this, I hereby request, most humbly, that you remove Mohammed Aminu Baka from AfD. Brainbox (talk) 06:43, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@Zakari Brainbox The AfD process runs to completion once started. You may make policy based contributions to the discussion if you have not done so already Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 08:24, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Having looked at the advert for the political candidate, this article will fail (0.9 probability). Wikipedia may not be used for political campaigning. Do you have a relationshio of some sort with Baka, Zakari Brainbox? If so you must declare it on your user page. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 08:32, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• @Zakari Brainbox, I understand your frustration, as I have been in your position during my early days of editing. Timtrent has done justice to your query by explaining to you what Wikipedia is not. If you have specific questions I’m willing to listen and reply to them, even better, you may go to the WP:TEAHOUSE and ask questions there and you would get instantaneous replies. Celestina007 (talk) 09:36, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@Celestina007, Thanks for your understanding. I'll gladly welcome your ideas. @Fiddle Faddle^Timtrent, I'll put your kind words and suggestions under advisement. Yours in Wikipedia,Brainbox (talk) 10:47, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Zakari Brainbox Your argument at the deletion discussion is likey to fail because you have not demonstarted by use of policy how ity complies wiyth WP:GNG. You may wonder why those suggesting it be deleted have not been more specific, but they do not have to be, It is incumbent on thise wishing an article to remain to demonstrate beyond doubt and with precision that it complies and how it complies. These are both done by excellence of referencing.

For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this article a clear "keep" (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.

Note that we need excellence, by which I mean quality. I do not mean quantity. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 11:28, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Zakari Brainbox, thank you. but you need to listen to what Timtrent has been telling you so far. Celestina007 (talk) 12:04, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Ani Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 331dot (talk) 14:11, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@331dot, Thanks, I’m going to make my contribution there right away! Celestina007 (talk) 15:58, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

It’s heartbreaking seeing a fine editor go from being a productive editor to a banned editor in less than 72 hours. More perplexing is what initiated his ban, all he had to do was acknowledge his shortcomings. Nothing more. Celestina007 (talk) 17:56, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@Celestina007:

Thanks Celestina! God bless! Antonio Cool Breeze Lime Guy Martin (wassup?) 00:30, May 23, 2021 (UTC)

@AntonioMartin, I appreciate the kind words but it’s no big deal, no one tells the minimum wage earning pizza delivery boy a “thank you” for doing their job because it is expected of them to do their job, same applies here. So no it’s no biggie! Thanks all the same.Celestina007 (talk) 01:54, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Regarding an AFD

Hello, on may 22nd, I opened an AFD for a Malayalam film Vellinakshatram (2004 film). Today, on 27th may, TheWikiholic closed the afd as Keep, without even a single Keep vote. Have a look at this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vellinakshatram (2004 film). I think at least 7 days is mandatory for a closure unless it doesn't have an up vote, right? Regards, Powerful Karma (talk) 11:25, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Celestina007, Vellinkashathram is one of the highest-grossing movies of the 2000s. I have closed the AFD per WP:Speedy Keep by considering his action as vandalism. This user has been nominating similar types of articles daily stating he has done WP: BEFORE. I'm highly suspicious about the editing behavior of this editor. This user only started to edit Wikipedia 20 days ago. Within that period, he has nominated more than 26 pages for deletion as you can see on his AFD log. I'm highly suspicious that this user is an experienced user who has been blocked indefinitely for similar behavior in the past.— TheWikiholic (talk) 12:41, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

TheWikiholic, I just nominated unsourced articles. And here what I've mentioned is the action you performed. With out even a single Keepvote, how can you close an afd as Speedy Keep? And what is the matter of experience here? What vandalism I did? You can have a look at the same afd log, the nominations I made... Any admins can check those nominations and my identity. Powerful Karma (talk) 13:04, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I have removed your nomination based on 2 & 3 per this. I've found your argument of you having done WP:BEFORE is false and that's why I've managed to find sources for those articles. You also nominated the articles like this, which won awards, for deletion. It clearly shows that you have not even read the article properly before nominating a page for deletion.— TheWikiholic (talk) 13:27, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this discussion is here, but, TheWikiholic, you cannot close an AfD improperly based on your opinion of the nomination and of the nominator. If you have problems with either of those, you can take the matter to WP:ANI - or WP:SPI if you have evidence of socking, including at least one other account. As for the AfD itself, you should have !voted instead of closing it. At this point, it should be relisted to get more !votes.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:34, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

There was no references at all when I nominated the film. And the award was not to the film but to the Director and singer. I think it fails WP:NFOE. Powerful Karma (talk) 13:42, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

@Powerful Karma: That's not true. There were three references in the article when you nominated it. Additionally, lack of sources does not necessarily make a subject unnotable; that is the reason for WP:BEFORE. Please learn to WP:INDENT.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:56, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Bbb23, I'm not talking about Vellinakshathram film, I'm talking about Karayilekku Oru Kadal Dooram. The wikiholic just mentioned about that too. That's why I replied. Powerful Karma (talk) 13:58, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Powerful Karma The claim seems to be wrong. When I checked the article Karayilekku Oru Kadal Dooram now it has a reference before you have nominated it for AFD. Currently the webpage is not available, but InternetArchiveBot has already achieved it and added that link in 2020.-❙❚❚❙❙ GnOeee ❚❙❚❙❙ ✉ 14:15, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

This does not meet NFILM. Nothing other than the award. Powerful Karma (talk) 14:20, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

• I’m going to recuse myself from participating in the AFD because I admit I do have a bias as to this situation or any situation baring a semblance to this, on one hand I have a new editor who I expressly told to come to me whenever they were confused, on the other hand I have an editor trying to prove the new editor isn’t “new”, a situation I have been in severally whilst fighting undisclosed paid editing. whilst my 'hands are tied' I can however speak on editor conduct and how to handle this correctly. Firstly, @TheWikiholic, I don’t doubt your experience here, I don’t doubt that you believe your motives are genuine , and of course I don’t doubt your expertise either. I haven’t looked into anything pedantically but from what has been said here, I can say this; speedy closing an AFD as Keep without a single keep !vote generally falls under WP:BADNAC, even if there were more than 1 keep !vote, Futhermore, criterion #2 of WP:CSK has to be glaring, that is, very obvious, such as (WP:GAME) or Revenge nominations, If not, isn’t a valid rationale to speedy close an AFD. If you think there is something off with Powerful Karma, as correctly suggested by Bbb23, you can, with cogent evidence take that to WP:AN/I or open an WP:SPI, If not, just allow it, several good faith editors and even administrators have been burned because of this, even when it was crystal clear they had good motives and the integrity of the collaborative project at heart. Now, @Powerful Karma, nominating or mass nominating articles due to lack of sources isn’t the right approach, lack of sources, except for WP:BLP’s (which fall under WP:BLPPROD) isn’t a valid reason to nominate an article for deletion, rather, you perform a WP:BEFORE look for sources and add it to the article, in the absence an AFD is valid. Finally, these comments should be made to the appropriate AFD venues and not here. Consensus is determined by the community in the appropriate venues. Celestina007 (talk) 14:51, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Just wanted to say...

Just wanted to tell you how excellent this is: Interplay between UPE , Sockpuppetry & Advanced User Rights on your user page, and hope one day you turn it into an essay for the community. UPE's and socks burn up so much of our time and energy in maintaining the integrity of the 'pedia when we could be doing more productive things. I never made the connection with user rights until I read this. Thank you, and hope all is well. Netherzone (talk) 17:16, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

@Netherzone, All is well, well except for my acromegaly that is, haha, thanks for the kind words and do stay safe, I probably might, at this juncture I’m taking one step at a time. Once again, your kind words are appropriated. Happy weekend amigo! Celestina007 (talk) 17:22, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Celestina007, and you also enjoy the weekend, my fellow editor on another continent! Netherzone (talk) 17:26, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

@Netherzone, From Nigeria with love. Celestina007 (talk) 19:56, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I saw in a message below that you are in the hospital. Hope it goes well, and that you have a good recovery. Please don't let wikipedia add stress to your life. When problem editors get me down, I think of it like characters in a situation comedy and that always seems to make me smile. Netherzone (talk) 02:01, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@Netherzone, thanks for the kind words NZ. A hobby can’t stress you now can it? It’s an acromegaly related surgery. But oh my! It’s a good feeling to feel this loved. Celestina007 (talk) 08:52, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

UNFAIR REJECTION

Please state how does it qualify in WP_NOT Sequel5 (talk) 21:46, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

@Sequel5, WP:NOT references using Wikipedia for purposes not compatible with our terms of use. In this case that would using Wikipedia as a means for promoting a non notable organization. Have you read WP:GNG yet? if not, reading it now would prove helpful. Celestina007 (talk) 21:52, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I believe it is "promoting a non notable organization just because I do not know of an independent reference. Cause the company seems to be very popular in the surroundings. But now I know the reason. Thanks. Will request again once other independent sources cover about the company Sequel5 (talk) 22:25, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

@Sequel5, a popular company doesn’t necessarily mean a notable company. Popularity may not be used interchangeably with notability as they aren’t one and the same. For the article to be accepted, WP:NCORP has to be met and for NCORP to be met reliable sources must be used in the article. I’m willing to assist you so if you have more questions let me know. Celestina007 (talk) 22:32, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I understood. Can anyone else other than me in the future edit and approve the same? I wish I want to be the first to publish this. Please let me know Sequel5 (talk) 22:39, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

@Sequel5, yes insofar as the organization satisfies NCORP anyone may in the future add more sources to the article or re-write the article and submit it for approval at AFC. Celestina007 (talk) 22:44, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

You were very informative. Thank you! Sequel5 (talk) 23:00, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

@Sequel5, glad I could be of help. Celestina007 (talk) 23:04, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi - hope all is well with you. Thanks for your recent pings and your work in patrolling new pages I've started. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:55, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

@Lugnuts, you are welcome mate. Celestina007 (talk) 08:00, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Regrets

Was working on an artiste who is culturally significant important to our part of the world, and within minutes, it gets shifted to draft space. In my past experience, an article can remain there in limbo for months, and this is the best way to kill any initiative for contributing to the Wikipedia. My thoughts on this: [9] Fredericknoronha (talk) 21:44, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

@Fredericknoronha, hello, sorry to hear that but unfortunately it did not meet the requirements to remain on mainspace. The article comprised of three sources, a user generated sources and two other sources which were music download websites. However, I did see potential, hence I drafitified the article and did not nominate it for deletion, the article in draftspace allows you ample time to look for better sources to add to the article. I should however mention that the article does indeed have an encyclopedic tone, but a WP:BEFORE search i conducted didn’t turn up much, perhaps you would have better luck than I did. I should also correct a misconception here, which is, observing other articles on Wikipedia having average or bad sources shouldn’t be a reason to equally do the same. I do not mean to be offensive if it comes off to you as such. I’m happy to answer more questions from you. Celestina007 (talk) 22:01, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Not that I intend to keep getting caught in such issues, but I do feel there is an underlying systemic bias against (i) smaller communities (ii) those which are less digitised, especially in a global context which hardly reports on 95% of the planet (iii) those on the "periphery" of the larger cities and seemingly far away from the "centre of the world" when it comes to creating and retaining articles on the Wikipedia, particularly the English Wikipedia. We are often told/hinted that we should be working on smaller, regional Wikipedias (suggested as an alternative to English). My only point is that I can't really help if English has become my first language, due to circumstances of history beyond my control. It is unfair if not illogical to assume that the "ownership" of the language should be situated somewhere in Western Europe or Northern America. Have faced this problem many times, and I only wish more editors would appreciate such issues or how it affects the attempts to build "the sum total of the knowledge of the world". The one-size-fits-all approach cannot really take care of global diversity... Fredericknoronha (talk) 22:20, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Also, had mentioned that I was in the process of getting the citations. A little time could have been given. Once in Draft, it takes months together (see the link above, to one specific case, involving a prominent institution in our region) to get it out of draft. Fredericknoronha (talk) 22:24, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

@Fredericknoronha, The draftspace was designed for editors to perfect their work(which includes sourcing) as a prerequisite for publishing to mainspace. Furthermore, it isn’t necessary hard to get a draft article out of draftspace to mainspace. You could resubmit the draft and ping me to have a second look at the draft article and if it looks okay(all problems addressed) I could always accept and publish it to mainspace immediately. Celestina007 (talk) 22:33, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For all the help and advice on recent sock-related events. Maybe a more subtle approach is for the best, instead of my kick the door down and ask questions later technique! Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:34, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

@Lugnuts, Aye! You are far too kind. Celestina007 (talk) 17:58, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

No problem. I see while I've been having the luxury of sleep, you've had a chance to sample the delights of the drama board! Never a dull day in Wiki-land. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:40, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@Lugnuts, it’s way too funny, I have an editor extremely vexed at me because I caught them engaging in UPE. In any case they have been handed a block for a week. Celestina007 (talk) 07:45, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Tech News: 2021-22

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Problems

• There was an issue on the Vector skin with the text size of categories and notices under the page title. It was fixed last Monday. [10]

Changes later this week

• There is no new MediaWiki version this week.

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

17:04, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello

Can you please look into this?.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:07, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@TheWikiholic, I’m editing from a hospital bed so please bare with me if the replies are slow. Their WiFi is horrible, Okay let’s start, it does appear to be conflict of interest editing, you know how we do it, leave a warning message on the tp of the editor involved, (try and engage them) if they deny it, ask about the image and how it came about to be their “own work” if the answers are improbable or appear to be intentionally deceptive, it implies they aren’t here to build an encyclopedia and are deserving of a block, so what you do next is to take them to the COIBOARD, after which you then go back to the article perform a WP:BEFORE search if the subject is not notable, nominate it for deletion. Furthermore check the article for spam links and remove them. Celestina007 (talk) 17:54, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that you are unwell. I hope you have a speedy recovery and that I hope that Wikipedia didn't add to any stress for you. Best wishes. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:41, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@Liz, thanks for the love Liz, It’s no wiki related stress, trust me, what you love can’t really stress you, it’s acromegaly related. Celestina007 (talk) 08:49, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Random

Hi, what's your take on the current happening in the South Eastern part of Nigeria especially with respect to the president's recent announcement? Stormy Chamber (talk) 21:26, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@Stormy Chamber, Marvel, I consider them incendiary, Unbecoming of the traits of any Leader, I honestly can’t be bothered about Nigeria, the country is headed towards a civil war and if it does come to that I honestly would move to Utah. “The south easterners would soon receive the shock of their lives”, what sort of president says such? the country is going into a civil war before 2024 & Mi o raye oshi, I’m definitely moving out. Celestina007 (talk) 21:43, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for responding, nice to hear from you again. A great thing you have options. To be clear, I think the statement was "Whoever wants the destruction of the system will soon have the shock of their lives".

Yup! I vaguely remember it was something along those lines, all the same, a rather morbid statement from a president. Paul said it best , “I have faith, but I have a plan B” Celestina007 (talk) 22:08, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Request: Argument for non-deletion/ Inkxpert

Most of the sources mentioned in the reference links section are notable (if you find any reference non-notable, you can edit the article and remove the link), and Inkxpert is a notable organization.

You can also check the below notable links: https://www.linkedin.com/company/inkxpert-inc, https://www.facebook.com/inkxpertinc, https://www.instagram.com/inkxpertofficial/

I request you to remove the deletion tag from the Inkxpert page.

Hello, all the sources you listed are the quintessential examples of the inverse of reliable sources. Please read WP:RS to understand what a reliable source is. Celestina007 (talk) 19:22, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I have made adjustments as recommended to the Draft:Sanusi Mohammed Ohiare

Hello Celestina007, thank you once again for your comment and recommendation on the Draft:Sanusi Mohammed Ohiare, I have made the adjustments for your attention please. Awaiting your prompt action as usual. Regards. Bibihans (talk) 22:11, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@Bibihans,  Done Congratulations Bibihans, Although the “Association membership” section of the article still needs a revamp. Celestina007 (talk) 12:28, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Mischievous

Hey. You are not the first person by any means to call me that, and I gladly accept it as a compliment. :) Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:55, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@Alexandermcnabb, oh no, I didn’t mean that in a bad way, In-fact, thanks for bringing the AFD to my notice, I meant it in a “I see what you did there” manner and I’m sorry if it came off as something other than that. Celestina007 (talk) 16:52, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

It didn't! We're good. :) Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:58, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

@Alexandermcnabb, you actually did the collaborative project a huge favor go to the tp of Nnadigoodluck, I have been unearthing several undisclosed paid editing, I just unearthed this Godspower Oshodin this morning, I unearthed about four last night. Celestina007 (talk) 12:31, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I did, I noted the conversation you were having there with them. It looked like a pattern of longstanding, relentless UPE, which is why I invoked the Fell Spirit Celestina!!! :) Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:07, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

@Alexandermcnabb, there are still more to unearth, using Xtools It precisely shows almost all article's they created towards late December 2020 were all UPE, the Green October Event, Green October Event 2016, and all in that series, all of them, none of them pass WP:EVENT. Celestina007 (talk) 14:17, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

@Alexandermcnabb, I just unearthed this: La Mode Magazine, I was thinking of insisting on removal of their Autopatrol and NPP rights indefinitely but i think an indefinite block on them is the only way out at this juncture. They have virtually created spam after spam after spam and done so blatantly and with impunity. Your ping just saved the integrity of Wikipedia. Celestina007 (talk) 14:44, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Maybe ANI is the place to go and get 'em all nuked? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:45, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

@Alexandermcnabb, i have yet unearthed more: Olakunle Jamiu Azeez, between ANI and COIN, I think I should probably go with ANI as you suggested, but an RFA is ongoing and that is my major problem, you know how our community obsesses about RFA's and pay little attention to other things. Anyway i am going to be unearthing more of their covert UPE tonight but it’s an arduous task as they mix spam with good work and productive work. Celestina007 (talk) 20:35, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

@Celestina007: this might be - further - food for thought; one week after the suspected UPD editor created Draft:Krystal Okeke, this article was published, which states that the Wikipedia page was set up by a PR firm called Amity Global Network. At the time of the linked article's publication, User:Nnadigoodluck (pinging for comment if they choose) was the only editor to have edited the article. In addition, it seems that Alex Nwankwo (whose Wiki article was created by the same editor) is the CEO of Amity Global Network. Some thorough explanation or sanction is needed. SamHolt6 (talk) 02:21, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

@SamHolt6, exactly, that was the major reason I opened this at ANI, i have requested that both Autopatrol and NPR be removed from their perms. I don’t envisage them saying anything as they have been nabbed red handed in undisclosed paid editing. In sincerity, all thanks to both DGG & Alexandermcnabb for bringing this to my notice. Celestina007 (talk) 02:36, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

@DGG, played a very pivotal role here worthy of praise, if they weren’t one of the view sysops that patrol the article creations of editors with Autopatrol rights, I may have never nabbed Nnadigoodluck and their incessant UPE articles. I am also trying to propose an indefinite block on Nnadigoodluck, but would wait and see how ANI plays out. Celestina007 (talk) 02:41, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

• I think Bradv said it best, whilst I can’t remember word for word what they said, i vaguely remember it to be along the lines of “if you don’t have cogent evidence to indict an editor in UPE, you can nominate for deletion all articles of theirs that have tale signs of UPE by that you drive them out of business” I have abided by that and as of now I have nominated two-third of their shady looking articles for deletion. Even better is as of now, I now have proof and have included it my report against them at ANI. Celestina007 (talk) 02:58, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
• Their only luck is that my report coincides with two RFA's open so the community is as usual pillorying RFA candidates, but in any case an eventuality is an eventuality. We have tolerated their UPE long enough. Celestina007 (talk) 04:33, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Quick Thank You

Hello,

I appreciate your help in letting me know how to use talk page and reaching out to editors. My experience so far on Wikipedia has, honestly, mostly not been good and I have appreciated the handful of editors that have reached out, given a good explanation, a suggestion for help, and not acted inappropriately. I wanted to let you know that you have been proper, respectful, and helpful during my time here. I am still a bit on the fence as to how much longer I will continue being an editor (due to some bad experiences and lack of accountability by some other editors) and I wanted to use this time before things possibly get hectic to reach out and say thank you :) PS: Apologies if this is a bit long but wanted to give a proper thank you and some context. Take care! Updatewithfacts (talk) 22:46, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@Updatewithfacts, it’s no worry, I appreciate the kind words, editing here can be stressful but if you can find a particular area that interests you, I implore you to please stay, if in doubt i am always here to answer your questions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:22, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

notability ?

What's your opinion of the notability for Evannie Isioma Patrick and Ogenna Ekwubiri] ? You know the reliability of sources in this field better than I, but my first instinct would be to question the articles on grounds of both notability and promotionalism . DGG ( talk ) 04:35, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@DGG, both appear to be non notable but have a mirage of notability if you don’t pedantically look into them. The first article mirrors the second article. In Evannie Isioma Patrick the first source used appears to be the only reliable source and reliable piece used throughout the article. The other 8 sources used are reliable sources but most definitely not reliable pieces, most of them do not have a byline, which is indicative of a guest editor. The same applies for Ogenna Ekwubiri. They are both WP:ADMASQ's and I would classify both articles as possible undisclosed Paid editing. I am troubled that the user possesses Autopatrol and could be engaging in covert UPE. Celestina007 (talk) 11:05, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for your integrity!

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		For your excellent essays, especially: WP:CONNECTTHEDOTS. Thank you for all you do to maintain the integrity of the encyclopedia! Netherzone (talk) 16:08, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@Netherzone, thanks mate, I appreciate. Celestina007 (talk) 16:45, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

sharing experiences

What do you think are the proportion of UPE we are missing these days? . My impression is that we missed a great many in the first 5 years of the project, judging by what I found when I joined, and it has decreased since; but it is difficult to distinguish the true UPEs from the coi editors working without monetary payment, and also to distinguish both of them from the good faith editors who write in a promotional style because that's what they see here--and that's what they've seen in media generally, as the world is permeated by advertising.

I'm concerned about the ones we keep because we don't notice or don't catch; but I am even more concerned with the ones we do catch, but where people here insist on keeping the articles--and keeping the promotionalism. In some fields it is almost impossible to get promotional articles deleted at afd: the overlapping categories of entertainment generally, internet celebrities, and "influencers"; popular eating places and other venues; charitable endeavors and vogue products and firms, and attractive people with minor accomplishments. A few years ago I would have aded, articles from editathons without adequate control, but those running the sessions are now more careful. I would also have added editing projects to fill major gaps, but these projects too are gradually improving in quality, though some still work from lists of people many of whom might not be notable .

Our attempt to decrease promotionalism of companies by using the current much stricter NCORP has generally worked, but it has had the side effect of making it harder to include actually important firms in fields whee there is little attention from the public.

I don't know any good technique for handling these. The only thing that sometimes works is to go back again a year or two later when sometimes interest has decreased, so they are at least not kept permanently. I like others have lists, butt hey've been swamped by trying to deal also with the many nely incoming drafts and articles. My current method to avoid feeling personally frustrated, is to simply ignore the worst of the fields. DGG ( talk ) 17:28, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@DGG, I was initially going to say the amount of UPE we miss is directly proportional to the ones we catch, but no, we miss a whole lot of undisclosed paid editing and the Autopatrol rights have made a tangible number of UPE go undetected for several years. Save for you and others who patrol the work of editors with Autopatrol, the collaborative project would be inundated with UPE articles, ironically as opposed to helping in NPP, Autopatrol is actually doing the inverse, at least that is the truth for African bad faith editors who often do everything they can in order to get this perm after which they begin perpetuating UPE. I don’t appreciate the concept of editathons or any form of competition that brings in new editors or make them create articles, chiefly because AFAIK (In Nigeria) It is just an excuse for banned/blocked editors to return, UPE be perpetuated and a whole load of mess left for new page reviewers to clean up after. Not to sound harsh, but I believe the community inadvertently encourages undisclosed paid editing, by AGF when it’s crystal clear when something is totally off. So are we missing or failing to catch UPE? Yes! by what proportion? A very large proportion. Celestina007 (talk) 18:07, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I will withdraw autopatrolled from anyone abusing it. No UPE should have that right and probably no declared PE either. But it is not necessary to show someone definitely to be a paid editor in warrant removing the right; an editor who introduces a substantial number of low quality articles should not have autopatrolled. So there's no real need to challenge editors if they deny being a UPE--we can judge by the articles. For the ed. in qy, where the right has already be removed and added more than once, I'm looking to see what articles would be kept by AfD, in order to justify the removal if challenged. Meanwhile, if you have actual proof of UPE, email it to me. I'm a checkuser, but that rarely helps. DGG ( talk ) 23:47, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@DGG, Although a relatively arduous task, I shall commence the search, and send a mail at the appropriate time. Celestina007 (talk) 00:17, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Ya think?

I am in complete agreement w/re: Special:Diff/1027061008. Irrelevant, obtuse, counterproductive? Yep, all of those. —valereee (talk) 22:52, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Its inane, i find it counter intuitive and productive, like if you don’t really have anything tangible to say or voice out, then just zip it. Celestina007 (talk) 23:34, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Tech News: 2021-23

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Changes later this week

• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 8 June. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 9 June. It will be on all wikis from 10 June (calendar).

Future changes

• The Wikimedia movement uses Phabricator for technical tasks. This is where we collect technical suggestions, bugs and what developers are working on. The company behind Phabricator will stop working on it. This will not change anything for the Wikimedia movement now. It could lead to changes in the future. [11][12][13]
• Searching on Wikipedia will find more results in some languages. This is mainly true for when those who search do not use the correct diacritics because they are not seen as necessary in that language. For example searching for Bedusz doesn't find Będusz on German Wikipedia. The character ę isn't used in German so many would write e instead. This will work better in the future in some languages. [14]
• The CSRF token parameters in the action API were changed in 2014. The old parameters from before 2014 will stop working soon. This can affect bots, gadgets and user scripts that still use the old parameters. [15][16]

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

20:01, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Discussion on Shyam Metallics page removal

What did you find wrong in that article? If you think there is any correction required you could have corrected it then and there only... BNJ Nilam (talk) 21:57, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

@BNJ Nilam, hello there, it met WP:DRAFTIFY. You probably have already read WP:YFA but re-reading it even if it isn’t your first article is a great idea. You could take a look at WP:CITE and WP:REFB also when you aren’t too busy. Celestina007 (talk)

Tech News: 2021-24

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

• Logged-in users on the mobile web can choose to use the advanced mobile mode. They now see categories in a similar way as users on desktop do. This means that some gadgets that have just been for desktop users could work for users of the mobile site too. If your wiki has such gadgets you could decide to turn them on for the mobile site too. Some gadgets probably need to be fixed to look good on mobile. [17]
• Language links on Wikidata now works for multilingual Wikisource. [18]

Changes later this week

• There is no new MediaWiki version this week.

Future changes

• In the future we can't show the IP of unregistered editors to everyone. This is because privacy regulations and norms have changed. There is now a rough draft of how showing the IP to those who need to see it could work.
• German Wikipedia, English Wikivoyage and 29 smaller wikis will be read-only for a few minutes on 22 June. This is planned between 5:00 and 5:30 UTC. [19]
• All wikis will be read-only for a few minutes in the week of 28 June. More information will be published in Tech News later. It will also be posted on individual wikis in the coming weeks. [20][21]

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

20:25, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Tilottoma Bangla Group

Hi dear the page is legit the comapny opened by the Toto_Ltd. You can see their announce on their official site https://asia.toto.com/company-news/in-bangladesh-toto-showroom-opening-in-bangladesh-tilottoma/

Also, you can see reailble sources on the Tilottoma Bangla Group pages. I hope you will approve the page and remove the delation tag. Thanks for your pleasure.

Asides the possible conflict of interest editing here, that is not how notability works here, an article's subject is notable based on their own merit and not their proximity to a notable entity, for example, in this case this organization should satisfy NCORP. Celestina007 (talk) 20:51, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, i've added some more info and sources, Will it apporove it now? I'm worry about the delation tag. How many days it takes to check? Please let me know. Thanks.

Unresolved issues at ANI

Hi. Please see this thread at ANI that you have been involved in. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:45, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

@Lugnuts, I feel the problem is editors are quite conservative about initiating a formal proposal, I see the concerns raised as valid, sound and very much imperative. Celestina007 (talk) 21:03, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Celestina007. Hope you are well. Girth Summit has written a very good proposal in the thread. If you have time, I'd be grateful if you could please take a look and comment. Thank you. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:42, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

@Lugnuts, As mentioned there, I would have supported a proposal for an indef block. There is no justification for an established editor participating in conflict of interest editing (without disclosing it) if it were a long time ago and is now moot I’m willing to overlook, but what I won’t permit is being an established editor and still actively participating in COI, that is bad faith editing. The problem is, I think established editors get way too comfortable and believe they have leeway to do whatever it is they want to do. Celestina007 (talk) 17:52, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Thanks for your regular patrol of new articles and fair assessments of companies and products. Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:05, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry, thanks blue. I appreciate this. Celestina007 (talk) 10:20, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Progress

Following the neutralizing(I’m sad it wasn’t outright obliteration of their accounts) two of the most sophisticated UPE rings in Nigeria have been greatly and significantly destabilized this year alone. This is progress! The amount of upe/spam amongst Nigerian editors have exponentially reduced now things have stabilized(for now) Although I have encountered a relatively new editor who happens to be too versed in policy hinting at WP:NANE. I have added them to my watchlist and in due time they would slip and when they do I’d invariably be here to expose them. Celestina007 (talk) 21:56, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Tech News: 2021-25

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

• The otrs-member group name is now vrt-permissions. This could affect abuse filters. [22]

Problems

• You will be able to read but not edit German Wikipedia, English Wikivoyage and 29 smaller wikis for a few minutes on 22 June. This is planned between 5:00 and 5:30 UTC. [23]

Changes later this week

• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 22 June. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 23 June. It will be on all wikis from 24 June (calendar).

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

15:48, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

New Article:

Hi Cele! I just got this, Andrew Nkom, written. Could you please help me out with a review? Thanks! Kambai Akau (talk) 20:28, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

@Kambai Akau,  Done, but you need to beef up the sources a little bit. You are aware you could also use WP:OFFLINE sources right? If you can not find something online going offline to find sources is a great idea as well. Celestina007 (talk) 21:34, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

@Celestina007: -- Thanks for the review, mate! I will endeavor to do so. I really appreciate. Kambai Akau (talk) 21:40, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

@Kambai Akau, Aye! anytime mate. Celestina007 (talk) 21:42, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Celestina007 -- ✌🏽👍🏽 Kambai Akau (talk) 21:45, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Talk page strike/redaction

Hi Celestina, I originally posted this to ANI. However, I noticed the timestamps and realised the timeline.

You posted this at 19:02, June 19, 2021. Schazjmd then counselled you at ANI at 20:15, 19 June 2021 regarding the expectations regarding user talk pages. You acknowledged this at 20:25, 19 June 2021.

Based on your comment at 20:25, can you please refactor or remove your current post on the user talk page? Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:56, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

@Daniel, alright. Celestina007 (talk) 14:21, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

painful lessons I've learned the hard way

I felt like in addition to my comments at MFD I should say something here. I realize this all came out of nowhere and may have felt a little like an attack on you, and it that's the case I apologize. I saw your cites to these essays at ANI but didn't know what they meant, so I read them both and was a little alarmed at the underlying attitude.

I've been there, way back I was a vandal fighter, spending hours a day engaging with some of the most obnoxious people to ever edit here. Doing nothing but "busting the bad people" can lead a person to see bad intentions everywhere, and to overreact or even become obsessive. This mindset cost me my first RFA. In my quest to thwart a prolific vandal (literally hundreds, maybe thousands, of sock accounts, on a new IP every few hours, playing weird head games like reporting his own socks, that sort of thing) I got a little overheated and said and did some intemperate things that are not desirable from an administrator, or anyone else really. And I reverted and reported for vandalism a total good faith editor because what they were doing kind of looked like what a then-prolific page-move vandal would do. They were very understanding when I explained myself, they knew exactly what I wrongly thought was going on, but it was an embarrassing experience. I did learn from both things though, knowing when to let a thing be somebody else's problem is a tricky skill to get right, but I keep trying.

I guess my overall point is that while we all feel that UPE is a looming existential threat to Wikipedia, it's also good to find other things to do, and to pass cases on to others once you've gone a few rounds with with them. This keeps it from getting too personal, and helps keep Wikipedia from becoming something stressful instead of an enjoyable hobby. Just some free advice to take or leave as you please. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:28, 22 June 2021 (UTC)