User talk:Celestina007/Archives/2021/April

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

A further antennae twitch

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

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 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 20:30, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
I think it's worth waiting for another reviewer and just watching and waiting FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk 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 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)

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 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)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Celestina007/Archives/2021/April&oldid=1036062642"