Talk:Nnaemeka Ikegwuonu

DW article deletion
Hi User:Celestina007 I see you deleted the DW article and said it had no connection to the subject. But actually if you scan down the article or search it for his surname you'll see it does talk about Ikegwuonu twice. See the section "listening to unreasonable people" https://www.dw.com/en/the-global-diplomacy-lab-tackles-migration/a-18834238. Requesting you revert the edit please CT55555 (talk) 10:46, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Fake Referencing?
Hi User:Celestina007 You deleted a second reference with the explanation "fake referencing" but the article does mention him. Can I ask for an explanation? Also can you please stop removing references? You started a AFD process and now by deleting references you're making the article look worse and therefore the opinions of the people who comment on the AFD might get the wrong impression about this article because so far you've deleted two references that both discuss the subject. CT55555 (talk) 10:51, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * @, fake referencing, or deliberate ref bombing, is when an article or a publication discusses a subject matter altogether but the source is injected into a different altogether in order to bloat the references, for example there existing sources in the article that substantiate they are returned to Nigeria, you can re-use those sources rather than use a source that describes something totally different to substantiate what can be re-used with sources already present in the article. Celestina007 (talk) 10:58, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "deliberate" seems like you think I've done something wrong on purpose. I beg you to assume good faith. All I've done is google search and use the items that come up under "news" when I did so. I'm trying to keep my feelings in a box about this process, but to start the AfD and then delete references makes it seem like you're inviting people to critique a worse version of what I did. I saw guidance that I can make it better during the process. I decided to let it stand as it was, but if you edit it to make it worse, that seems unfair. CT55555 (talk) 11:07, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

COI tag
User:Celestina007 has informed me that the COI tag is about me. I do not have a COI. CT55555 (talk) 11:16, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Open Talk
Schazjmd, it's unfortunate I was still working -editing - on the article before you reverted my edit. Perhaps a bit of patience or asking for clarification would have been okay.

Princess of Ara
@, i received your message on my TP & would have replied you on yours or written this message there but as I can’t reply you on your TP as you expressly told me not to I figured this to be the closest medium that could serve as a proxy to reach you, I woke up today with a fresh perspective, a couple of things, i note elsewhere that you mentioned that I ought to have messaged/mentioned at AFC or at the TP of the article before taking it to ANI (I’m paraphrasing here) & this is probably correct (I would revisit this soon) You left me a message on my TP in which I note you inadvertently(in good faith cast aspersions, you probably didn’t recognize as aspersions) an analogy would be when you say I breached civil and bite, the former I certainly did not do, this is the ANI which is easily accessible, & the latter, i certainly did not do also, (if there are diffs to the contrary please do share this and I’d expressly apologize) (Revisiting the aforementioned) you claim I didn’t WP:AGF, this isn’t entirely incorrect  I probably should have talked to you via the TP of this article, unfortunately and honestly, ANI came to mind first, which is where I agree that I didn’t necessarily assume good faith, of which i believe we have an equal amount of blame to share on why that is so, I also note elsewhere that you imply we haven’t always been in agreement in recent times, and I believe once again that we do have our equal responsibility to share on why this is so, I’m intentionally not making any references to the past, as I believe what is done is done and the past as we all know it, to be (possible dry) historical data, what was is now what was, what is to come no one can really tell, but what we do have, “is what is” which  is the present. Moving forward we can try to mend relationships, you probably may not reply but I do hope you can give this a thought. Celestina007 (talk) 22:24, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Infobox
I have just reverted 's reintroduction of the infobox added by. The rationale for readding it was: infoboxes generally should be in all articles where there is information enough to support them. I have to say, that represents neither policy nor consensus (except within some wikiprojects). Infoboxes are an area of hefty disagreement between Wikipedians, but that rationale is, I am sorry to say, ridiculous: there is always enough information to have a minimal infobox, because they are shells for containing information and can exist with just the name and nothing else. I had earlier given a more detailed explanation of my thinking on my user talk page, in response to a note from CT55555 (I see they've now responded there), so I'll quote it with some typo fixing: "for people, particularly living people not involved in professions where a lot of statistics or other lists can usefully be marshalled in a box (such as athletes, and politicians who've held ministerial positions), I believe it oversimplifies, giving the impression that the things the boxes have lines for are the only important thing. They then attract editors who want to put in the person's marital/dating history and pad out "known for". Better for someone who uses Google, which reproduces Wikipedia's infoboxes if present, or who is on a cellphone and thus only sees the top section of the article, to get a lead paragraph that explains in words who the person is. (Articles on, for example, ships, schools and universities, buildings, films, and of course species, which they were developed for, are on the other hand well suited to infoboxes: on those topics there's a whole raft of specifications, lists, and statistics that is clearer in a box than in prose form, and where the reader may quite likely be looking for one or two of those specifics, but we can't predict which one(s).)" Infoboxes are not an automatic step in article improvement, like sectioning or adding more categories as more information is added. They are an optional list-form quick reference based on choices from among a variably relevant set of template parameters that for many readers will pre-empt the view of the article introduction. They are therefore inherently reductive and IMO should be very carefully considered as to desirability when what they will wind up summarizing is a person's life and work. (There's also the issue of their feeding metadata to Wikidata and the reciprocal tendency of some infoboxes to change what they display based on Wikidata; since that back end programming is largely inaccessible to our editors and a vector for vandalism, I'm also very leery of it, but my impression is that for that security reason, the infoboxes about people are still one-way. I mention it mainly because at one time "emitting metadata" was given as a reason for infobox ubiquity being desirable, and I strongly disagree. This article has a short description precisely because if we don't add a short description here on Wikipedia, Google and other search engines are fed and show searchers the Wikidata short description, vandalized as it frequently is.) Yngvadottir (talk) 23:41, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * So your opposition to infoboxes is because they're usually aggregated by search engines? I don't see why that's our problem. The point of infoboxes is to contain the basic biographical information in a single location for those that want to know that information and don't have to dig through the body of the article to find it. The benefit is to our readers, which is the entire point. And the subject of this article in particular has a number of awards and such that are helpful for including in an infobox. Silver  seren C 23:46, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I respect both views stated above and don't have a strong opinion. I was just routinely trying to improve articles that I'd started. You've both clearly been doing this for longer than me, so I find the discussion interesting. CT55555 (talk) 00:00, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * No, with relation to people, in particular, it's that for technical reasons (cellphones) and search engine presentation reasons, for some readers they pre-empt the intro; and that they are inherently reductive. This person is a relatively neutral case—he doesn't have a bad reputation in some quarters, or two very different reasons for notability—but most of the institutions he studied at, he earned certificates rather than degrees, and so like the list of things he founded and the list of awards, the length may give an unwarranted impression that he's very distinguished. The impression the infobox gives is a more pressing concern with people who are seen very differently depending on viewpoint, or who happen to have an extensive romantic history, because that's what infoboxes do: they aggregate lists. But I do not see it as a service to the reader at all to assume they would rather have a list without nuance. In many classes of articles, as I wrote above in the quoted statement, there's a lot of minutiae that the reader may indeed want quick access to one or more items from. But for most people, especially living peoplen, the first sentence of the introduction should be providing the only essential information, including birth and, if non-living, death dates, nationality, and what they do/did that makes them notable. Infoboxes effectively create a sub-encyclopedia of quick reference factoids, and that's less useful to the reader in many articles, in part because of selection bias (including what is in some ways an advantage of infoboxes for Wikipedia: they provide a pen for genre-changing, over-rapid updating of sportspeople's stats, and other things that need an eye kept on them). Yngvadottir (talk) 00:52, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * If you're against the usage of infoboxes as a general practice, which seems to be what you're arguing for, then you should open up an RfC or a broader discussion to get consensus on that. Otherwise, trying to remove them from individual articles because you oppose their usage in general isn't appropriate. Silver  seren C 00:58, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I refer you to my above statement: there are many categories of articles, including several kinds of biographies, where they are useful. It's not all or nothing. I'm a little surprised you would so overgeneralize what I've written. To repeat, there is no reason whatsoever to generalize the case for infoboxes to every kind of article, and no compelling reason for an infobox in this article, where it gives a distorted impression. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:38, 19 January 2022 (UTC)