User:Celestina007/archive

Welcome!
Hello Celestina007! I notice that, although you have been here awhile, you have never been properly welcomed. Welcome! Here's your standard boilerplate welcome template:

Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page contains a lot of helpful material for new users—please check it out! If you need help, visit Questions, ask me on my talk page, or.

Here is your current service award. You may add to your user page if you wish, and as you move forward through life you will earn higher awards:

I responded to your message on my talk page. Herostratus (talk) 16:53, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much Celestina007 (talk) 17:06, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, colleague. Herostratus (talk) 21:14, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

BLP Caution
Please exercise more caution when adding sources to WP:BLPs. In this edit, you added three obvious mirrors, and a video that appears to be completely unrelated to the BLP claim. I'm assuming you're just doing google searches and taking anything you can find - please evaluate the sources as well. If they mention Wikipedia as a source, then they may not be used as references. Kuru  (talk)  12:51, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the observation I'd be sure to take note next time @.

Please don't take a delete !vote as a personal attack.
Hi Celestina, I recently !voted to delete an article that you created and asked a question to someone who !voted keep here. All of this was done in the space of a few minutes following the legitimate question I asked on the deletion page. It would be a good idea to read this WP:HOUNDING and try to remember that the deletion process is not a personal attack against the creator of the article and that you do not WP:OWN the articles that you write and you do not have to aggressively defend them. Domdeparis (talk) 11:14, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You immediately reacted by !voting keep on an article here Articles for deletion/Jason Schenker that I had nominated for deletion and accused me of being biased or ignorant. This is a personal attack as there is no evidence of bias and you must remember to assume good faith as per WP:AGF.
 * You then removed a speedy delete tag that I had added to a page claiming that speedy delete should be reserved for hoaxes and vandalism. I replaced the CSD tag and the page was subsequently speedily deleted by an administrator.
 * You then added a message to my talk page accusing me of harassing this user and asking me to moderate myself so as not to offend. If you had taken the time to read his talk page notably here or the different talk pages about rugby we have participated in you would see that he and I are working together to try and get Georgian international rugby players included as being presumed notable. I have always endeavoured to never use language on Wikipedia (or elsewhere) that would be considered offensive and this is the first time anyone has accused me of being offensive.
 * I concur with Domdeparis on this. Please remember to remain civil when participating in AFD discussions. Per WP:AFDEQ, you need to "avoid personal attacks against people who disagree with you; avoid the use of sarcastic language and stay cool". You have a tendency of engaging in personal attacks when responding to other editors. Evidence of this can be seen here and here. As an advice, please do not respond to others when you're angry.   Versace1608   Wanna Talk? 22:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I really do not follow, if I removed a speedy delete tag on a page created by another editor it's because I don't agree with it, that doesn't transcend to "personal attacks" oh yes, I contributed to an AFD and with all due respect, "it is as if nominator is biased"  doesn't translate to you being biased, it is a perception, a thesis, it's subjective, it's a theory, which can always be wrong. And yes I did think you were being a little hostile to an editor, hence the message on your page. If you think I'm wrong please do not hesitate to report me, what I want is a free and fair environment for all editors, both old and new, an environment where they can work together without fear of vested interest or fear of stepping on anyone's toes, if I get blocked for trying to create this new and improved environment for all Wikipedians then so mote it be.

I can tell you without an ounce of doubt ; if I ever have gone against policies of this environment it's out of ignorance, which of course hostility is a part of. Celestina007 (talk) 18:46, 1 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi Celestina, there is absolutely no need to report you I think my message and that of are amply sufficient and I imagine that if you've read WP:HOUNDING you now fully understand why I felt it necessary to leave a friendly reminder here. I would suggest that a crusade to change Wikipedia so that it reflects your personal vision is unnecessary, counter-productive and maybe a little arrogant. Wikipedia is a community where guidelines, policies MOS etc are discussed debated and decided by consensus, if you don't like them or feel that they can be improved there are a multitude of projects where you can participate; the trouble with your behaviour is that it is self-serving as it involves pages that you have created, people who do not agree with you and subjects that you personally defend and this kind of thing is frowned on by the community. That said if you think that it is appropriate, then feel free to go ahead but please do not involve me. Thanks. Domdeparis (talk) 10:58, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

March 2017
I noticed that a message you recently left to Charleseugenehill4 may have been unduly harsh for a newcomer. Please remember not to bite the newcomers. If you see someone make a common mistake, try to politely point out what they did wrong and how to correct it. Thank you. Largoplazo (talk) 02:52, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes sir, i understand. I had been doing a lot of correcting all day and seeing another just made me lose it. Celestina007 (talk) 12:25, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I can relate! I sometimes find myself running back to alter my language two or three times. Thanks for responding. Largoplazo (talk) 12:53, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Celestina007, you say you understand but you did the same thing at User talk:DannyMedia47 about fourteen hours ago. You cannot keep doing this. If you are going to "lose it", step back, take a break, and stop editing Wikipedia until you've regained your equilibrium. --Neil N  talk to me 14:12, 19 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I did as you asked, stepped back for sometime now to relax and it really did help. Thank you.  Celestina007 (talk) 22:52, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed you left a rather bite-y message on an editor's talk page  - please just use the regular templates without adding excessive legalese - it comes off very abrasive and may be hard for other editors to understand. CHRISSY MAD ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  15:51, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Tiffany Evans ‎
Greetings Celestina007. I reverted the edits you made to the Tiffany Evans ‎article because it appears to be WP:GRAPEVINE and WP:BLPGOSSIP. The sources (iHipHop, Crushable, and Sandra Rose) you cited are not reliable sources. There's no evidence of the sources having editorial oversight. Please familiarize yourself with WP:RS before you decide to add potentially libelous content to BLP articles.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 21:25, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Removing Deletion Tag On Kain Joyner
lol I removed the tag because I felt the editor needed more time to work on the article as he is still quite new and may not fully understand policies pertaining creation of Biographies, but that doesn't necessarily translate to subject of his article not being notable, you understand right ? In this case the editors shortcomings was probably what was affecting the subject of the article. Thanks for asking anyway. Celestina007 (talk) 22:31, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * This is not a valid reason for removing speedy deletion tags. If the editor needed more time to work on the article, why did they move the article to mainspace? The reasoning behind your action is flawed.  Versace1608   Wanna Talk? 22:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for replying but as said, it's not a valid reason to decline something. Additionally, it's evident that no amount of time was going to make that article encyclopedic - they were not notable and there was nothing credible or significant in that article. If it were truly a case of needing more time (which I don't believe it was) the better solution is to move to draft or suggest they edit in their sandbox.  CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  22:42, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Removal of CSD tag
Hi, Celestina007, I'm wondering what reason you could possibly have to decline an A7 as you did ? There was absolutely no credible or significant claims of anything in that article. CHRISSY MAD ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  22:08, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Nollywood Star Actress Angela Okorie.jpeg
Hi Celestina007, did you take this picture yourself or did someone else take it? Please be honest in your response. If you didn't take it, you do not own the copyright to it. If the subject herself sent it to you, she will need to fill out a declaration of consent form and email the said form to OTRS at permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. If she wants to donate the file to Wikimedia, she'll need to read Donating copyrighted materials before doing so. Thanks.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 22:38, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

hello, I'm not sure I understand to satisfaction how copyright and copyright infringements work, but the image is a célfie taken by her and I was given permission to edit and upload as I see feat, if an email is required from her I would try and communicate it to her, in the meantime I understand copyright violations are not taken lightly, what do you suggest I do with the image now it's already uploaded? Delete it until the email has reached the OTRS? Celestina007 (talk) 03:36, 11 March 2017 (UTC)


 * If she is going to send the email as soon as possible, you don't need to delete the image. You should place the OTRS pending template in the summary box, specifically under permission. Please read this section of the Commons:OTRS article. It is really going to give you some insight into how OTRS deals with copyrighted materials.  Versace1608   Wanna Talk? 10:23, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Herbert Thompson (Surrey cricketer)
Hello, Celestina. Thank you for reviewing this article which has been introduced as a WP:STUB. I've removed the WP:Notability tag you applied because the article, although short at present, complies with WP:NCRIC in that Herbert Thompson was a first-class cricketer. If you need any help with understanding notability guidelines and policies, which are somewhat complicated, please let me know. Hope you are enjoying the site. All the best. Jack | talk page 16:56, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Info on your userpage
Greetings Celestina007. I am just curious, why did you write the info on your userpage in bold?  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 22:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

For the sake of emphasis, that's a summary of my thought process. Lol, Are you certain, you are just curious or is there a specific question you want to ask? Celestina007 (talk) 23:10, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Message to User:HenryMaddenLibrary
your article {{Chicana/Latina Foundation]] is poorly written and lacks reference, forthwith add at least two references to establish notability of organization then subsequently develop. However according to Wikipedian laws an article needs to meet certain standards before moving it. It is in your best interest to follow wikipedia's from now on. Celestina007 (talk) 21:55, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Reactortrey
Hi! I just wanted to let you know that I restored the speedy deletion tag on this article as two hours is plenty of time to add something of substance to the article - additionally a search yielded absolutely zero results that would allow establish notability (or be useful as any type of source.) If they need time to work on it, it should be drafted, however in this case, the article really isn't viable. Chrissymad ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  19:05, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Edit my mistake, I based this off of your two hour comment, it appears its only a few minutes old. Chrissymad  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  19:06, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps Different time zones may have cause this error, but all the same isn't this enough reason to give him/her a little more time? I wouldn't remove the tag so as to avoid bad blood in any form it may be, however i intercede for the editor, do allow him some time. Celestina007 (talk) 19:20, 1 March 2017 (UTC)


 * In this case I'd say that A7, in my opinion was still appropriate - this was clearly not an encyclopedic topic so I don't think any amount of time would change that. Chrissymad  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  19:21, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Comic knowledge response
I don't know what you mean by the comment outside of the side note, but I don't recall anything that would be in the WP:CRYSTAL that I have done. The link you provided was a red link. --Rtkat3 (talk) 21:01, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

March 2017
Celestina, I was surprised at the aggressiveness of this post of yours on ANI. It was quite unwarranted to read sarcasm into Guy's advice, and not every piece of common-sense advice an experienced editor gives to a less experienced one has anything to do with guidelines and policies. Guidelines and policies are no substitute for common sense, and they don't cover everything. I see you also bring guidelines and policies to the fore in a similar way at User talk:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, apparently assuming that DISCUSSAFD and various other informative pages are clubs suitable for whacking others over the head with. (They're actually not even "guidelines and policies".) I endorse NeilN's suggestion on Fortuna's page that you knock off the lecturing of experienced users on issues you know nothing about, see for instance. Please work on your own tone instead of being so quick to take offence at others'. The culture here isn't such that people are impressed by wikilawyering, and if you persist in a steamrolling kind of style in interacting with others, you may soon have more admins than just me and NeilN taking notice of it. We two are fairly laid-back admins, but there are some that are less so.

PS, please use informative edit summaries, as they are very helpful to other users. Edit summaries like "Contributed" or "Input" are not informative; as the help page puts it, they're functionally equivalent to not providing a summary at all. Bishonen &#124; talk 12:12, 4 March 2017 (UTC).

Nomination of Eddie Nawgu for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Eddie Nawgu is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Eddie Nawgu until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Darreg (talk) 21:06, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Charles Inojie
Greetings and thanks for creating the Charles Inojie article. My Bio Hub is not a reliable source and is in fact a self-published source. The site is powered by Blogger, a self-publishing platform. Please refrain from citing My Bio Hub from now on. Thanks.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 02:03, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the correction Celestina007 (talk) 02:15, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you sir, I understand & would comply. Celestina007 (talk) 10:36, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Comment on your recent editing habits
Hey Celistina hope you're fine. I think Darreg was quite right, he wasn't trying to make you feel bad as you claimed editors made you feel in your early period on wikipedia, he was only makimg an observation which i think I quite agreed with. And I think you should try contributing to content and always improve them rather than removing and nominating for deletion of which your recent contributions are full of. Do wish you the best editing Wiki. Talk to the GENIUS (talk) 20:56, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Your recent cleanup methods
It's a good thing that you've taken it upon yourself to cleanup Wikipedia from uncited claims and promotional contents but the way you are going about it in this your early days of editing isn't the best from my perspective. I have gone through most of your recent cleanups and my observation was that on many occasions you were removing correct information from articles because there was no inline references, when a better thing to do would have been to get the references to the article or add a "citation needed" template, so as not to put the article in bad shape as in your case. Your edits wouldn't have been an issue for me, if it was coming from an editor that have created quality articles and content to the Wikipedia, but from your contribution history, 75% of your created articles are weakly referenced with mostly unreliable sources, this suggests to me that you still have alot to learn in getting the basic understanding of reliable references on Wikipedia. If you can spend time contributing content, your strong zeal for cleaning up Wikipedia will be near accurate. My advice for you is to let the more experienced editors use the mop for now. This is an advice. Darreg (talk) 16:31, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Olumide Oworu
Hello Celestina007. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Olumide Oworu, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. Primefac (talk) 15:18, 3 February 2017 (UTC)