This user is a member of the Wikimedia volunteer response team.
This user is an Articles for Creation reviewer on the English Wikipedia.
This user has autoconfirmed rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user has autopatrolled rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user has AutoWikiBrowser permissions on the English Wikipedia.
Email this user
This user has extended confirmed rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user has MassMessage sender rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user has new page reviewer rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user has page mover rights on the English Wikipedia.
Identified as a precious editor.
This user has pending changes reviewer rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user has rollback rights on the English Wikipedia.

User:Celestina007

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This editor is a
Senior Editor III
and is entitled to display this Rhodium
Editor Star
.

What I Predominantly Do As An Editor On This Collaborative Project [edit]

  • Generally, my work here revolves around anti spam and new page reviewing, both of which I have been awarded Barnstars for.
  • I’m also involved in AFC related activities but I would not typically do reviews on request, but I am always willing to help out in reviewing your article if (a)you are a new editor trying to publish your first article and (b)if you feel your case is exceptional and pinging me to review your article would be very much plausible.
  • I am a Teahouse host which means you can ask me any questions anytime you are confused or in need of help or direction. My forte are on biographical articles, which means if you are unsure of the notability status of a biographical article, I am more than willing to guide you especially if you are a new editor struggling to create your first article. It is my joy to see you you create your first article without any hurdles or stress I and many other editors were subjected to during our early days of editing.
INVITATION: Are you familiar with most of our core PAG? Do you have a clue as to how notability works? Do you enjoy teaching in general? Are you interested in helping out new genuine editors with potential to improve this collaborative project? if yes, please do Join Us! at the Teahouse we would be glad to have you on board.
  • I’m also involved in content creation of which I have been described as an awesome Wikipedian for. I’m interested in the Occult hence most of my recent article creations have been on occultists. A super majority of my articles are biographical & for this, I also have been recognized as I have received the biography barnstar. Each new day I try my best to figure out new ways to improve the encyclopedia hence I’m quite diversified & operate across multiple spectrums.
  • I’m a mass message sender thus if you have read WP:CANVASS and WP:MMS and you fully understand both and you want a mass message delivered relatively fast because it may be time bound rather than wait in a queue you could visit WT:MMS make a request and ping me immediately.
  • Assisting new page reviewers who may be in doubt to perform a source analysis on any Nigeria related articles as i possess very decent knowledge about Nigerian sources
  • I’m an OTRS/VTRS volunteer, which basically means i handle incoming mails on behalf of the Wikimedia foundation and possess very sensitive material which I do not, have not, and will not discuss openly.

Note

I edit Wikipedia because of my natural affinity for writing and abhor totally the concept of edit for pay, be it disclosed or undisclosed and have never and will never edit for pay. If anyone tells you that they are me or have strong connections to/with me (of recent this is true as I have family members who know I edit Wikipedia) but please do not pay them any attention as they would be scamming you in/with my name. There are more potential risky problems which is; you may be unknowingly interacting with cyber-space fraudsters participating in an “Advance Fee Scam” known otherwise as 419. It is in your best interest to disregard them and report them to your local law enforcers or forward any evidence to my e-mail. A major caution would be this; I do not have any social media account under the name of Celestina007 so if you come across any Celestina007 on any social media site advertising their services it is a Joe Job & you should forward all evidence to WP:ARBCOM or legal@wikimedia.org. The WikiMedia Foundation would not be held liable for any funds you may have lost due to this scam.

Positive Remarks Made About My Works & I[edit]

“Please keep up your good work. WP has a dearth of good editors handling African subjects, and we need folks like you. Very best wishes” — By Onel5969 (commending my efforts in creation of Africa-related biographies)

”you asked for someone who knows the Nigerian media landscape better, let me bring in Celestina007, AfC's resident Nigeria expert. I respect their opinion on this topic” — By Bkissin (Commending my Knowledge on source evaluation)

“So glad to see you active again Celestina007. You are one of the few female volunteers in WP:WikiProject Nigeria who are sincerely passionate towards the improvement of Wikipedia and I appreciate you for that. Even when we had our differences, I always knew you had good intentions” — By HandsomeBoy (commending my teamwork spirit and return to the encyclopedia after a year of absence)

”You are probably a unicorn for being such a prolific editor and primarily using a phone though.” — By hako9

”I'm only grateful for one thing—that whatever happens in the future, I've been lucky enough to have had the chance to watch you grow and develop onto one of our strongest contributors—front and back of house—while not shying away from the sensitive areas needing a nuanced touch. Keep up the (very!) good work! By — Serial Number 54129

Reconciling Encyclopedic Value and Notability[edit]

This is largely a spin off from Rosguill's material. During the course of my new page reviewing I have come to realize that not all encyclopedic articles of value necessarily meet our notability threshold, and not all articles that meet our notability threshold are of any real encyclopedic value. We are an encyclopedia and articles of encyclopedic value should be/or (ought) to be what we look out for, anyone can be (notable) or meet our notability threshold but are they of encyclopedic value? If yes, then What sets them apart? How are they special? What makes them interesting? How would this “article x” interest our readers? All the above are questions I ask myself before reviewing articles(keeping in the back of my mind that satisfying WP:GNG or WP:BASIC) is a must (as of now) and should be met before accepting/publishing into mainspace or “marking as reviewed” The question now is, should we lower the notability threshold for articles from Africa, Asia and South America If the articles are of immense encyclopedic value but lack significant coverage? due to rather obvious reasons or do we maintain the same threshold for Africa, Asia and South America? as we would for articles from Europe, North America and Oceania? These are questions I constantly ask myself each day.

Appreciations and Barnstars[edit]

Nigeria biographies

Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg

Thank you for quality articles about persons from Nigeria, beginning with Bobrisky in 2016, then Reverend King (Nigerian pastor), Ebele Okaro and Liz Anjorin, for monitoring new articles, for supporting old-fashioned values, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

You are recipient no. 2420 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:33, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Team Barnstar.png The Teamwork Barnstar
This is for overcoming our earlier differences for the purpose of creating a better encyclopedia. Kudos ma'am. HandsomeBoy (talk) 10:22, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Biographystar.png The Biography Barnstar
Thanks for your new articles! — Sagotreespirit (talk) 12:37, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
WikiDefender Barnstar Hires.png The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
A small token of appreciation for your work. - Harsh (talk) 23:05, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
NPP Barnstar.png

The New Page Patroller's Barnstar

Thanks for all of the great work you do regarding patrolling new pages. VisioncurveTimendi causa est nescire 13:45, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
No Spam Barnstar Hires.png The No Spam Barnstar
Hey, you deserve this! ─ The Aafī on Mobile (talk) 21:05, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
WikiDefender Barnstar.png The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
This will not and would never equal what you do! Thank you for all that you're doing here! Em-em talk 14:22, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Kindness Barnstar Hires.png The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Hello Celestina007, Just a note to say Thank you! Autopatrolled granted Thanks for the push and the recommendation you left on my request surely that helped in getting me the right. Thanks a lot! I hope to do a good job. Certainly if I need any clarifications I would drop by. Thanks a lot!!! Ampimd (talk) 16:57, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
WikiDefender Barnstar Hires.png The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For a basketball player, you know how to keep a low profile when you need to  :) thanks for all your great work here, and I hope real life isn't being too oppressive right now. Cheers! ——Serial 16:59, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
WikiDefender Barnstar Hires.png 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)
Barnstar of Integrity Hires.png 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)
Essay.svg Wikipedia Essays Barnstar
Thank you for creating excellent Wikipedia essays regarding its policies and guidelines which many editors may find helpful while editing or working here. Best Regrads.  A.A Prinon  Leave a dialogue 12:41, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Winnowing Fan barnstar.svg The Winnowing Fan Barnstar
For you efforts separating Wikipedia's "wheat" from the "chaff", and for all the good work you do here. I was sorry to hear you are unwell, and send my best wishes for a speedy recovery. We need more editors with your courage and integrity. I hope that you feel better soon and 100% of your energy returns. Blessings to you. Netherzone (talk) 00:29, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
DiamanteEZ.jpg A cute little diamond
I am sorry I couldn't find anything more worthy of you but your contributions to Wikipedia cannot be symbolized even with jewellery. V. E. (talk) 17:42, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
WikiDefender Barnstar Hires.png The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
This is a long overdue Barnstar to you, my REAL WIKI G (G for Guardian Angel 😇 😉), for ensuring not just for me, but that Wikipedians edit to standard. I wished you saw the bright star below the new moon in the sky last night. It will shock you this is the same star standing right beside this long essay (if you can't see one, the length probably drove it away 🤗). You're a great woman Cele. You're greatly appreciated! Kambai Akau (talk) 16:39, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Essays[edit]

Curbing Undisclosed Paid Editing and less than Ethical Editing[edit]

(An ongoing project of mine, which is intended to serve as a mechanism for new page reviewers and anti spam editors to aid them in curtailing unethical practices even when I am long gone).

Advice To Anti-Spam editors[edit]

On Conduct[edit]

If you are a serial anti spam editor your conduct should be or (ought to be) unsmirched. furthermore, and to be on the safe side, I honestly would suggest following ADMINCOND even when you aren’t one. (I for one, on the 26-7-2021 pledged to myself, that I would to the best of my ability do so) and as from 18-8-2021 voluntarily wish my conduct be assessed by such standard by the community). Don’t be confrontational, if you think an editor is indulging in UPE you can initiate a dialogue with them and with a calm and neutral tone, ask them a specific question and if you remain unimpressed or unconvinced, don’t talk no more, your next move should be to take proof and report to the appropriate venues.

Using the {{UPE}} template[edit]

When you observe what looks like Paid editing you are more than free to template the editor or the article. The {{UPE}} template is not a template of accusation but rather a template that begs the question of if or not the templated editor is involved in undisclosed paid editing. Although the burden is on the templated user to defend themselves, it is good practice to initiate a dialogue with the editor you have templated if they say they aren’t engaged in paid editing and you aren’t convinced or find their explanation to be improbable or mendatious please insofar as they have denied it, immediately remove the template, what you do next is to gather sufficient evidence and report the case to WP:COIN, if you study the history patten of the given editor and find multiple dubious creations then visit WP:AN/I and file an official report there, if you suspect socking please go to WP:SPI, (see WP:IBUSA) if you have very cogent proof with private information please mail WP:ARBCOM.

Rock solid knowledge of Reliable sources and correctly analyzing them[edit]

If you engage in anti upe, you would invariably find yourself nominating dubious articles for deletion(s) and more often than not, the creator of the article may go off wiki to canvass with other bad faith editors with vested interests in the article, thus a supermajority of the canvassed participants may !vote in favor of retaining the article on mainspace. The question is, what do you do when faced with this dilemma? It’s simple, the answer is you must possess rock solid knowledge of WP:RS and know how to analyze them correctly because to be honest if you are ever faced with such challenge, you are in a dilemma I call “One Against Many” Keeping in mind that AFD's are not a !vote and what matters in the quality of the discussion, you should proceed to create a source analysis table and explain extensively how the sources used in the article are not reliable, and by meticulously analyzing the sources, invariably good faith neutral editors with no vested interest would come across the article and see reason with you and !vote accordingly. In fact, the closing admin would also see reason with you. Now, you can’t as a (matter of fact) correctly create a source analysis table if you don’t understand WP:RS and internalize it. I for one read it every now and again. (it’s actually very much interesting) To be frank, being proficient in understanding and correctly interpreting RS, is a prerequisite to successfully combatting UPE. My accuracy in analyzing sources is largely attributed to the teachings of my master Barkeep49 and by my senior colleague; Doomsdayer520. Although I have a plethora of examples of such incidences, a quintessential example of this, is this incidence(an AFD I was involved in) which can be found here, note how I painstakingly took it upon myself to educate the participants better as to how sources work.

On Account Security[edit]

If you are quite active in anti spam/upe your account may become a target of hackers, so please go to your preferences and enable WP:2FA if your account doesn’t already have the feature installed, request for it here, you’d find the extra security very imperative. Please read ASIC as well.

How To Identify Spam and Spammers[edit]

  1. User is anonymous (an IP address)
  2. User:page and/or User_talk:page are red links
  3. No edit summary (other than, perhaps /* External links */)
  4. User has made only one edit, which consisted of inserting a link
  5. User has made multiple edits to related articles
  6. The majority of user's edits are to external links sections
  7. The link is a site that has Google/Yahoo ads (AdSense/SM).
  8. Edits are marked "minor"
  9. Link is trying to sell a product or service
  10. User adds links to the top of a section, above far more relevant sites
  11. User replaces an existing link or part of an existing link.
  12. The syntax of the added link does not match the syntax used in the rest of the list
  13. User adds links to inappropriate sections of articles ("References", "See also", "For more information")
  14. User adds links that have been previously removed, without discussing on the talk page.
  15. Following a link takes you to a site that does not mention the specific topic of the page containing the link.
  16. Link is unrelated, or only marginally related to the article. For example, link on a biography to a specific page on a genealogy site describing the person's genealogy, but not the person.
  17. User adds links to other Wikipedia articles where he/she has already placed spam links.
  18. User includes within the link description, "hosted on example.com" with a separate link to example.com.
  19. Link is mangled, or it took many edits to get the syntax right. The spammer may be new to Wikipedia and not be familiar with Wikipedia syntax for external links.
  20. Text of the link goes beyond describing the contents to actively encouraging you to read it. For example, including text such as, "Read more about [subject] in [this fascinating article]"

Useful Links[edit]

Quick Links To Teahouse, Help Desk and AFC Help Desk [edit]

New Pages Patrolling, AFC work, & AFD's[edit]