• Please this is important, I multi task a lot, thus if you intend to draw my attention towards a development please always use the {{ping}} function or leave me a message on my talk page it is very much possible that I do some querying and it may skip my memory altogether to manually check back at your talk page for a response, hence the need to always use the {{ping}} function. Please and please I cannot overemphasize on the importance of using the {{ping}} function. Thank you for your compliance in advance.

• Please Click Here To Leave Me A New Message.

Note: If You Are A New Editor And You Find Yourself Here, It Is Because You Have Been Assigned To Me As A Mentee, This Is So Because I Am A Teahouse Mentor. What In Summary This Means Is, You Are At Liberty To Ask Anything From Me And It Is Behoove Of Me To Respond And Guide You Accordingly, If You Are Reading This And Are Still Confused, As Aforementioned, Please Click Here And Ask Me Questions, I Am Here To Help. Alternatively, If I Am Busy Or Slow To Respond To You, You May Visit The Teahouse & Ask Your Question(s) There. Feel free to read this interview I was featured in.

— Peace Profound.

18 November 2024
News and notes: Open letter to WMF about court case breaks one thousand signatures, big arb case declined, U4C begins accepting cases In the media: Summons issued for Wikipedia editors by Indian court, "Gaza genocide" RfC close in news, old admin Gwern now big AI guy, and a "spectrum of reluctance" over Australian place names Recent research: SPINACH: AI help for asking Wikidata "challenging real-world questions" News from the WMF: Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia Endowment audit reports: FY 2023–2024 Traffic report: Well, let us share with you our knowledge, about the electoral college
Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

Celestina007 This user participates in WikiProject United States. This user participates in WikiProject Sweden. This user participates in WikiProject Israel. This user is a participant in WikiProject Freemasonry. This user is a proud member of the Independent Order of Odd Fellows. This user pledges to return to Old-fashioned Wikipedian values. This user has been identified as an awesome Wikipedian. This user has an alternative account named Celestina007 (alt). This user is a participant in WikiProject Occult. This user has been threatened by sorcery. This user is a participant in WikiProject Horror. This user is a participant in WikiProject Utah. This user is fascinated by Mormon studies. en This user is a native speaker of the English language. BSc This user has a Bachelor of Science degree in Resources management. M This user has a Master's degree. This user is a participant in WikiProject Spam. 2FA This user has enabled two-factor authentication. This user is agender.

• Respect yourself (Please & Please Respect Yourself) and I would respect you.
• Respect me and I would respect you.
• I believe in the spirit of consensus and collegial editing.
• Gentle approach when negating possible UPE, using little to no confrontation as opposed to a confrontational approach I erroneously used to do prior volunteering to be judged by WP:ADMINCOND on 27-7-21.
• I believe in constructive criticism and I really appreciate it as this is what has made me proficient, it also allows me the chance to be a better person, but I can tell the difference between patronizing or condescending remarks from true constructive criticism & I would remove such messages from my TP and leave you a message on your TP, notifying you that I have removed your comment.
• Respect my privacy.
• Approach and treat everyone as equals as no editor here is more important than the other.
• I am a student of knowledge thus I make it a point of duty to always ask questions as I know despite my proficiency I really do not know it all.
• I do not, have not, and will not attend any real life wiki meetups as it is my belief that it is counter productive and I abhor it, it is nigh impossible to make friends off wiki and come on wiki and not have a bias or conflict of interest with them.
• For the sake of my safety and wellbeing, my relationship with my co editors and wiki friends begins and ends here, you cannot meet or know me outside Wikipedia, There are only two methods to reach me, which is on my talkpage (this is the best method) and via email and even at that I would only respond if I really trust you.
• I tackle possible unethical practices and I believe promotional articles on non notable individuals do not deserve a place on mainspace, I can use my discretion to judge on if or not an article doesn’t meet our notability threshold but is of immense encyclopedic value and can decide to leave it on mainspace but I would not allow a promotional article on a non notable person with no encyclopedic value to be on mainspace.
• Having my respect and my trust are not mutually inclusive, having my respect is rather easy, In-fact, to buttress my point, Although I abhor undeclared paid editing, Sometimes I have respect for a UPE editor who has exhibited sheer brilliance, but obviously I would never trust such an editor. Earning my trust is another thing altogether and only a very select few have my trust.
• My tutor Barkeep49 has via email admonished me to give editors who have violated our TOU a second chance, I have adopted that philosophy and I am more than ready to give an editor a second chance but my stance for now is; if you have ever been indicted in UPE, sock-puppetry, meat puppetry, belonged to a UPE ring or in summary; any form of unethical practice, whilst I might indeed be willing to give you a second chance to prove yourself an asset and not a liability, if I’m to be honest to myself, I’m not so sure I can 100% trust you again. Wikipedia already has a false reputation of being a bad source for information, so you knowing that and still decide to perpetuate upe, is not only wickedness, it is sheer evil. Invariably it means you do not care about our reputation.
• In the famous words of MER-C, if you ask me an unintelligent or nonsensical question or leave a bizarre statement on my TP (except from a new user or one of my mentees who are still learning the ropes) not only would I not respond to the question, I’d remove it from my TP and wouldn’t even extend you the courtesy of explaining why I removed the question. Please do yourself a favor and ask me only smart questions or make intelligent comments/remarks on my TP, if you fail to do so, I would invariably embarrass you (publicly) which of course you do not want, so please and please in order to avoid that, do yourself a favor and only ask me intelligent questions or leave non trifling imperative statements or remarks on my TP.

• Create a mailing list for anti spam editors for mass message purposes on or before August 2022
• Find more occultists and create biographical articles on them.

• Note: Whilst from the view of most editors I am regarded as a very proficient editor regarding policy, this has led to me being asked to RFA (5) times now, twice on my TP and thrice via mail although this is a testament to my good works and knowledge of policy, whilst I was honored by the gesture, I have respectfully declined all due to the fact that it would impede my work at countering UPE.
• Generally, my work here revolves around my fortes which are tackling undisclosed paid editing, new page reviewing, and dealing with biographical articles, all of which I have been awarded Barnstars for. Having shown proficiency in accurately detecting UPE in the last three years, coupled with my dedication in serving the collaborative project, trusted system operators and functionaries entrusted me with anti-UPE tools. On 30-09-2021 (within my capacity) I commenced overseeing and assumed the role of a caretaker maintaining the collaborative project as a whole.

• 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 and Teahouse mentor 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 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? (Perfection isn’t required, just a clue would suffice) Do you enjoy teaching in general? Are you interested in helping out new genuine editors with the potential to improve this collaborative project? if yes, please do Join Us! at the Teahouse we would be glad to have you on board.

BENEFITS: Enjoying the inexplicable joy of teaching, and by being a Teahouse host you are also learning.

NOTE: Are you unsure of your eligibility to be a host? Are you second guessing yourself? Please do not, if you insist on knowing if or not you meet the threshold of becoming a host, then please by all means go to the talk page of veteran Teahouse hosts; Nick Moyes, 331dot, Cullen328, ColinFine & David notMD (to name a few) be sure to politely ask them if you qualify or not, any of them would be willing to check your eligibility status and give you pertinent advice on how to move forward.

• 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. Note; you must have correctly formatted the mass message you want to be sent else unfortunately I may not be of help since you haven't formatted the (mass) message to be sent properly.

• 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 a VTRS/OTRS member/volunteer, which basically means I handle incoming mails on behalf of the Wikimedia foundation.

• 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 legalwikimedia.org. The WikiMedia Foundation would not be held liable for any funds you may have lost due to this scam.

Through the guidance and mentorship of MER-C and off-wiki by Kudpung I’m very much grounded in spotting unethical practices site wide but most especially in Nigeria. Having studied under Barkeep49 I’m nigh perfect in the art of new page reviewing. I’m an expert in sourcing and biographical articles as well.

Nigeria biographies

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)

		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)

		The Biography Barnstar
		Thanks for your new articles! — Sagotreespirit (talk) 12:37, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	A small token of appreciation for your work. - Harsh (talk) 23:05, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

		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)

	The No Spam Barnstar
	Hey, you deserve this! ─ The Aafī on Mobile (talk) 21:05, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

		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)

		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)

	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)

	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)

		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)

	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)

		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)

	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)

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)

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	This barnstar is awarded in recognition of a combination of extraordinary scrutiny, precision and community service, specifically in the detection of undisclosed paid editing, sock- and meatpuppetry. It is awarded in astonishment about the deception and lies encountered when investigating cases of such behavior. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:37, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

		The Good Heart Barnstar
		This was cool! Thanks Celestina  :) ——Serial 18:32, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

	The Minor barnstar
	For doing minor AWB edits to a few articles on my watchlist. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 03:39, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

		The Typo Team Barnstar
		Dear Celestina, you are a gem! Minard38 (talk) 22:47, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

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.

Throughout my editing here I have been asked 5 times to RFA, twice on my TP and thrice via email I declined for several reasons but the most pertinent is because it would impede my work on UPE. I discussed with DGG and they expressly stated they are growing weary, and basically the younger generation should start learning how to fight spam, I saw reason with them as I appreciate and share their opinion hence the reason I created the UPE CHEATBOOK so in the event the younger ones pick up interest in fighting UPE or SPAM, I want to make it very easy for them to spot. I completely agree with DGG, anti spam is tiring, and of a truth the younger ones should start to engage in combatting spam, but unfortunately using my country as yardstick, It is literally just me combatting UPE. It is unfortunate that a good number of volunteers at WP:NIGERIA are often indicted every now and again in less than ethical practices such as undeclared paid editing, which has led to their indefinite block, and rightfully so.

I had discussed with Timtrent who i classify as an “Admin without the bit“ they are formidable force, I asked why they had not chosen to RFA and what they told me about why they refused to RFA was a very powerful statement, they said “I can do more without the bit than with the bit” and this statement resonated throughout my being, in the past, Timtrent did also say being an Admin is “too much” as becoming an Admin can give one the power to be judge jury and executioner, their points were indeed valid and I agreed with them. My own thoughts on Adminship is that the 7-day deliberation is morphing into a battlefield, although amendments are being made and this is a positive step in the right direction. In my opinion, (the battlefield and toxic aura around RFA') is the reason I proposed that it should be solely bureaucrats or present administrators asking the candidates questions as opposed to any and every editor asking the questions, including disgruntled editors who just !oppose as sheer Revenge, If it were functionaries doing the questioning this would not only dispel the toxic RFA environment but more individuals would be willing to RFA. If they do well the functionaries hand them the mop and if they don’t, they would have to try again in 12 months, rather than this current system which has the potential to allow for disgruntled editors to use this opportunity as a means to for revenge purposes. Certain disgruntled editors go through all the candidates edits and literally pillory the candidate over a statement they may have made several years ago. There is a shortage of admins and the reason is I have described above.

I do not believe we are fair to admins, they run the gauntlet, they pass, and now they have to be beyond careful, as every edit they make, every action they take, anything they do is basically put under a microscope, and certain rogue editors know this, thus when an admin is attempting to query the actions of a rogue editor, they immediately falsely threaten the relevant admin with not following ADMINCOND, not following ADMINACCT, threaten to report them to AN, To ANI, XRV, ARBCOM, in order to scare the admin away, the list is much. Admins are literally walking on egg shells as it is, it is my thinking that when you encounter an Admin, It is only fair and responsible of you to show them utmost respect and love.

• Cross-wiki linksearch
• Special:Linksearch

• WIKIPROJECT:ANTISPAM
• WP:SPAM
• WP:WPSPAM
• SP TP
• WP:WP SP TP
• SUSPICIOUS ARTICLES

Are you proficient with reliable and unreliable sources in your country? Do you understand how notability & GNG work? Have you read PROMO? Are you very proficient with sources in your country to the point you can tell when a (reliable source in your country is publishing an unreliable piece) ? Do you thoroughly understand WP:RS? Can you identify a CS if you come across one? and most importantly; Do you have a natural dislike for individuals sabotaging the integrity of the collaborative project for vested interests? If all the aforementioned boxes are “checked” then please SIGN UP and let’s get to work!

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.

When you observe what looks like Paid editing, if you largely remain unsure of if or not you are dealing with undeclared Paid editing as opposed to a conflict of interest, it is wise to use the {{COI}} tag instead of the {{UPE}} tag. For clarification purposes, the {{UPE}} template is widely misunderstood and wrongly assumed to be an accusatory tag, please note that this is not so, the tag "merely asks a question" to the article creator on if not they are engaging in paid editing. Furthermore, note that the burden is on the templated editor to defend themselves, however, 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 you can send an e-mail to the CHECKUSER team directly.

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 analyze the participants better as to how sources work.

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.

When executing my duties as a new page reviewer, if i observe what I believe to be undeclared paid editing, borrowing the words of Deepfriedokra, I’d shoot from the hips first (by DRAFTIFYING) before asking questions, I do this for diverse reasons and one of them, is to protect the individual who is oblivious of the intricacies of Wikipedia, scammers/UPE editors may know fully well that an individual who has approached them definitely doesn't meet any of our notability criteria but would go ahead to attempt to create a biographical article on them and if we are too slow to catch this, the UPE editor would successfully publish the article, then show the relevant URL to the unassuming client who clicks on this, sees their biography, they are pleased then disburse legal tender to the scammer/UPE editor who then hurriedly goes their way, knowing fully well that in due time the article would be flagged and eventually deleted, thus, the UPE editor would have successfully scammed the client.

In my attempt in protecting the third party, if I see what seems to be a UPE article I do not follow the conventional 15 minutes rule and would immediately drafitify and tag the article with a {{notability}} & {{COI}} tag and would proceed to begin a lengthy conversation on the tp of the article or, on the tp of the article creator by doing this, (a) I would be negating the activity of the scammer (b) protecting the third party, as they wouldn’t release legal tender until they can see a clickable url that takes them to their “biography page” this won’t be possible as the article in question would be in draftspace, (c) hopefully the client can see the (notability tag) and this would dissuade them from paying the scammer and cancel or terminate the transaction with the UPE scammer altogether.

• Death of undisclosed paid editing
• The O2C factor
• Don’t burn yourself
• Anti Spam Identity Conceal
• Not Omniscient
• Interplay between Upe, Sockpuppetry and Advanced User Rights
• Not A New Editor

You may have noticed my affinity for sources, this is so because I’m an academy trained new page reviewer who misunderstood a core question on sourcing my teacher asked me during my exams approximately 2(two) years ago & as a result, I answered the most vital part of my exam incorrectly, even though ironically at that point in time I had very decent knowledge on how sourcing worked & to substantiate this, my AFD stats were so accurate so much so that even before deciding to attend NPP academy, I was asked by a new page reviewer to become a new page reviewer, verify my claim; here. But at the Academy due to not asking questions for clarity sake and purpose, I ended up answering something I had good knowledge on incorrectly even though I already knew how sourcing worked, This made me read WP:RS daily and overtime it has become a hobby for me.

Since I wouldn’t want to inadvertently teach bad faith editors how to create good looking WP:ADMASQ's that’d confuse new page reviewers with little experience I’d only share the following below. Any admin, functionary, or trusted anti UPE editor is free to email me to teach them better as to how sourcing works.

As aforementioned, in order not to teach undisclosed paid editors how to create a good looking UPE ADMASQ article, that may confuse new page reviewers, I’d only share the following below;

1. Check for editorial oversight, if not present, don’t use.
2. Do a research on the source to check if or not they have a reputation for fact checking, if they do not, don’t use.
3. If the source is written by a guest editor, it may be indicative of a sponsored post, please be careful with such sources.
4. If a source is an opinion piece, it doesn’t count to notability so please don’t use.
5. If a “reliable source” has a vested interest (depending on the [subject] discussed please be extremely cautious when deciding on if or not to use)
6. Take note of churnalism.
7. A reliable source can be unreliable based on context (put context into consideration when accessing sources)
8. Do not discard a PAYWALL.
9. Do not rely solely on Google hits.
10. The presence of a byline in a “trusted” reliable source doesn’t necessarily prove sincerity or integrity, the onus is on you to read the content of the source check for “tone” and determine if or not the “reliable piece” is Infact an undeclared sponsored pre packaged material.
11. Sometimes, no matter how proficient you are in source analysis, it is a very tricky art which is learnt by fervent studying and experience. Even more difficult is analyzing sources outside of your area of expertise, especially if it involves a country in which you aren’t familiar with their sources. Now what you want to do, rather than use up hours on researching on those type of sources, you may simply contact a trusted editor who is familiar with the country and its sources in order to help you out in separating wheat from chaff.

Are you a new Nigerian editor struggling with how sources work? Are you an established editor who has an affinity for Nigeria related articles but are struggling with sources? Please I am more than honored to teach and put you through, all you have to do is leave me a message here & I’d respond instantaneously.

Nigerian sources are very peculiar, in the sense that even reliable sources every now and again publish blatant unreliable pieces/PR sponsored posts and try to pass them off as legitimate pieces, see this example, note how they try to pass it of as a reliable piece when it is a blatant pre-packaged sponsored material, to buttress my point, take a look here & you’d note that the The Punch is listed as a “Reliable Nigerian Source” when it definitely isn’t or in the very least falls under “QS” This phenomenon was first observed correctly by Praxidicae here. The problem with this, is, for the untrained new page reviewer who hasn’t passed through NPP school preferably studying under the tasking but very beneficial teachings of Barkeep49 or Rosguill, they are likely to miss this and inadvertently use this to guide them, which we can now see isn't flawless. Thus, why I advocate attending NPP school as prerequisite for applying for the Perm.

Having said, After a personal research i conducted, I came to the conclusion that although this retrogression, atrophy, & deterioration of reliable sources is possibly most prevalent in Nigeria|(Africa) and (Asia), it isn’t peculiar nor is it an isolated issue pertaining to the aforementioned country and continents, rather it is a global crisis. In the famous words of DGG, (I’m paraphrasing here) “There isn’t anything like a reliable source, rather, what we have is/are reliable pieces from generally accepted reliable sources" I agree with them, and I have adopted and believe in that philosophy, in the sense that each piece from any reliable source(s) from any continent should be vetted thoroughly.

• Simple English Wikipedia
• EIA
• UP
• COIN
• SPI
• ARC
• ANI
• AIV
• AN
• UAA
• XRV
• Citer
• RFA
• Edward
• EGB
• FPL // Sports
• MM
• SMM
• MMTP
• HMM
• WP:BLPN
• WP:RSP
• WP:RSN
• RS By Geographical Location
• WP:RFR
• MOS
• AW
• VPT Technical Related

• PHaB Technical
• VTRN
• WP:RFC
• WP:RFCOPEN
• WP:RFCEND
• Policy
• Technical
• Proposal
• WMF
• Miscellaneous
• Idea lab

1. Do not for any reason immediately act or (speak) when you are angered. This is extremely difficult but achievable, what you may want to do is switch off your desktop or if you are using a mobile device, close the app or log out, toss the gadget aside and when equilibrium is attained re-visit the situation.
2. Know when to keep shut! (Yes, know when to shut up!)
3. Avoid being confrontational.
4. Recognize when you are being deliberately triggered, and walk away from such circumstance(s)
5. Know when an editor wants to outrightly provoke a negative reaction out of/from you. Please, simply walk away from such circumstances. If this is a reoccurring incident then by all means do file a report straight to WP:AN/I. Harassment is not tolerated in this collaborative project.
6. Avoid vapid, moot, or unnecessary arguments.
7. Choose your words extremely carefully, recognize that at the end of the other computer or electronic device is a human being, choose your words extremely carefully in order not to offend nor hurt the emotions of your co-editor.
8. (On AFD's), Barkeep49 expressly explained to me that when In an AFD, what you want to do is, make a nom del rationale, follow it up with a rationale or two and then leave the rest to the community to decide, and if you aren’t the nominator, the same principle applies, make your rationale, follow it up with a comment or two, then as is customary, leave the rest for the community to decide. Furthermore from Rosguill, he stated that as a new page reviewer that by the singular act of just nominating an article for deletion your duties as a reviewer has been completed and you should let the community decide. These, are invaluable lessons which would allow you to be free from unnecessary bludgeoning of the AFD process and as direct consequence would save you from moot and vapid arguments which in turn would save you from a potential unnecessary unpleasant incident.
9. When you are clearly are at fault and are to blame, please be responsible and do not make the mistake of arguing, please always apologize when you err, if you feel “too accomplished” and feel you have transcended apologizing, I’m sorry but you aren’t a good fit for a collaborative project.
10. Finally, In all your attainments, above all, do strive to attain wisdom, which is an all encompassing virtue that would save you from any form of unnecessary unpleasant incident.

An editor has attained growth (as an abstract concept) or maturity, not by their proficiency in policy, but when they have learnt/learned to edit with ”prudence”, ”diligence”, ”dignity”, and ”integrity”, and furthermore know that they aren’t ”infallible” regardless of the number of years they have edited here, an editor (in my opinion) has not grown properly if they are found wanting in any of the named virtues. The aforementioned virtues should not only be embedded in the subconscious-mind of the editor but must be embedded in their super conscious mind also. In my opinion, an editor who claims to have “grown” and references solely or predominantly their proficiency in policy to substantiate their claim(s) of growth speaks that which is untrue. An editor edits in futility if all the named virtues aren’t met, attaining the aforementioned virtues requires daily conscious efforts which we must, or ought, to strive for as a matter of necessity.

1. An editor has grown when they do not allow ego to cloud their judgement nor let it take preeminence over collegial editing.
2. Choosing the words you use in this collaborative project very carefully.
3. Respect for your colleagues
4. Making arguments without swearing or name calling.
5. Knowing for a fact that we are all equals regardless of number of years editing here, general proficiency, gender, race or caste
6. Acknowledge that you aren’t indispensable.
7. Acknowledge that you do not know it all.
8. Avoiding revenge
9. Apologizing when you have erred.
10. Know and accept that you aren’t flawless or infallible.
11. Asking questions from anyone when in doubt.
12. Refusal to compromise integrity for vested interests, an example is turning down financial offers even when the financial offer is exponentially overwhelming.

• The Teahouse
• Help Desk

• Special:Newpagesfeed
• NPP Talk Page
• NPP Suggestions
• All AFDs
• Pending AFC Submissions
• AFC Talk Page