Talk:Eku Edewor

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Eku Edewor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140901092505/http://www.punchng.com/spice/my-favourites/my-style-changes-daily-eku-edewor/ to http://www.punchng.com/spice/my-favourites/my-style-changes-daily-eku-edewor/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:58, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Notability Of Subject
No.1; Hello, @ i have been away for quite long is why i am just reacting to this, i inserted the original notability related maintainance tags and as so, i have reverted your edit and restored it  to the version of  (hello to you too Versace) due to the fact that it represents perfectly, the current state of the page, now as per wikipedia guidelines drive by tagging or un-tagging is not proper and as so, we must make use of the article's talk to convey issues, or disagreements as regards certain aspects, and sections of any article. Now to my point; you say from observation, that sources provided in this article proves subject quite notable. it really does indeed beg the following questions; are these sources that potray her supposed notability even reliable sources? are the sources which are present in the article independent of the subject? have they, as per WP:INDEPTH discussed her significantly? answer those; and No! i wouldn't nominate the page for deletion because to be frank, which policy suggests that? The tags are not badges of shame but rather it is for people to improve on them, i would suggest you do not try to revert it but instead we try and reason here and reach a form of agreement. Celestina007 (talk) 23:05, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

No.2 ; @ You are yet to act in accordance with wikipedia guidelines, as per polices and guidelines governing this environment, wikipedia is a collaborative project which requires the effort of each and every one in order for it to function properly, from observation i see you taking actions based on what you think is correct rather than try to reach a consensus with other editors; an attitude of WP:OWN even though it wasnt you who created this page, furthermore your attitude of continually removing maintainance tags without addressing the issues is an attitude described in WP:!HERE i have studied a good number of polices and guidelines pertaining to this encylopedia and no where does it say an editor may remove maintainance tags if he or she feels like it. does it not apply to your reasoning that it would bring edification to wikipedia and more worth and value to you as an editor, if rather than argue, you look for sources which discuss WP:INDEPTH about the subject and insert it into the article. now isn't that just easy enough? please discontinue the act of removing maintainance tags without first addressing the issues i politely request this of you. Celestina007 (talk) 19:18, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Kindly assist me on this, @ @ and Your contributions would influence this misunderstanding between and I, as i am unable to understand let alone follow his thought process. (Reading the page history would enlighten you all better. Celestina007 (talk) 19:55, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

3O Response: Please wait until some discussion has happened before requesting a third opinion. If the other editor does not respond see WP:DISCFAIL.  Programming Geek talk to me 00:54, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, and thanks for even taking out time to respond, i have followed duly, the steps discribed in WP:DISCFAIL and would wait as i have been doing in the last 4 days for the editor to comply by engaging with me, if that still proves abortive then i would proceed to the next step & so on. Do have a nice day ahead and once more; Thank you. Further more,; for the sake of knowledge and being thorough; the editor Darreg has here, just Deleted the 1st Talkback request i placed on his user talk. My reasonsing is as thus ; i would not want any confusion when i place the second one as directed by WP:DISCFAIL Celestina007 (talk) 16:25, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

No.3 ; Good day to you This is the third time i would politely ask you for a formal discuss as pertains your actions of removing the notability tags without providing reliable sources or even in any way try to address the tag, you have resorted to even not using your edit summary, leaving your edit summary totally blank a direct violation of WP:ES This is the third time you would act in this manner, i believe you know what you are doing and also believe you know how imperative the numerical figure 3 is, when it comes to matters such as this, please discuss with me first before further changes to this page, you are way too experienced to violate polices such as WP:ENGAGE if this gets to the ANI we both know who's taking the fall, dont tarnish your name & repute please let us work according to wikipedia polices and guidelines i beg you for your own sake.Celestina007 (talk) 11:21, 8 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello Celestina, sorry for the late reply; I have been quite busy. First of all, I don't feel this subject's notability is in question, as a quick google search brings up a pretty wide media coverage. However, I feel Darreg should've been willing to discuss with you, since he was bent on removing your tag. I see the article has been nominated for deletion already, let's see what comes out of that. Regards.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 21:18, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I am not obligated to leave a note on the talkpage. It was her word against mine. This isn't a speedy deletion or PROD nom. I gave her reasons why I removed the tag in my first two edits. The right thing to do was to nominate the article for deletion, if she still thought otherwise. This isn't just about this article its about a trail of edits that someone needed to take a strong stand on. Darreg (talk) 23:51, 10 June 2017 (UTC)