This is an archive of past discussions with User:Kaizenify. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hi I’m reviewing new pages and I’m looking at this article you created earlier this year. At the moment I’m not sure it meets the requirements of WP:BLPRS. Are there any additional sources you could add to it? Thanks. Mccapra (talk) 08:15, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Event coordinator granted
After reviewing your request for the "eventcoordinator" permission, I have enabled the flag on your account. Keep in mind these things:
The event coordinator right removes the limit on the maximum number of new accounts that can be created in a 24-hour period.
The event coordinator right allows you to temporarily add the "confirmed" permission to newly created accounts. You should not grant this for more than 10 days.
The event coordinator right is not a status symbol. If it remains unused, it is likely to be removed. Abuse of the event coordinator right will result in its removal by an administrator.
Please note, if you were previously a member of the "account creator" group, your flag may have been converted to this new group.
If you no longer require the right, let me know, or ask any other administrator. Drop a note on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of the event coordinator right. Happy editing! Salvio21:37, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
August 2020 at Women in Red
Women in Red| August 2020, Volume 6, Issue 8, Numbers 150, 151, 173, 174, 175
Hello Kaizenify, the Corruption allegations you added in Vice President Yemi Osinbajo's page are grossly inaccurate. Kindly delete the Corruption Allegations and if you want proof including links that show that they are false, I will be more than happy to send to you. Thank you
Articles for Creation July 2021 Backlog Elimination Drive
Hello Kaizenify:
WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running until 31 July 2021.
Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.
There is currently a backlog of over 1700 articles, so start reviewing articles. We're looking forward to your help!
From the ANI I noticed you made a couple of mistakes as to how policy works, I was going to correct you that day but it didn’t seem proper correcting you simultaneously with your proposal, As to how {{UPE}} template works, if you haven’t read it before, please read the documentation page embedded in the template. you see, there is a difference between a UPE tag placed on an article and one placed on the TP of the article creator but that is irrelevant though, as both however follow the same premise. Now, the UPE tag isn’t a “false accusation” as you wrongly put it, an accusation would be a somewhat bold assertion that “Editor xyz” made, Hypothetical “Mr xyz you are engaging in upe” now that’s some serious accusation that requires proof. The UPE tag is a tag that in-fact does the opposite of “accusing” but one that literally begs a question that demands an answer or a dialogue if you read the documentation it literally starts with “The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic” the use of the word (impression) invalidates any argument that “cogent proof” is needed before the template is used as you yet again wrongly asserted. In-fact if there was “cogent proof” it would definitely not be handled on wiki(You wouldn’t even see the “cogent proof”) I largely attributed the mistakes you made as one done in good faith but weren't just aware of the documentation page of the template or didn’t bother/have the time to read it thoroughly before commenting. Furthermore, you aren’t necessarily wrong when you say that a UPE tag can indeed sometimes be “unfounded accusations” if for example an editor is doing a drive by UPE tagging for no real reason nor at least try to initiate a dialogue then I too would summarize that as “unfounded accusations” indeed. However and ironically the tag doesn’t demand we give you a rationale for UPE templating an editor, if you have read the documentation page like I asked you to, you’d notice the onus is on the editor at the receiving end to defend themselves. If you have a problem with the wording of {{UPE}} then you more than welcome to initiate a site-wide RFC if not please do not misconstrue nor misrepresent what is contained within the documentation page of a template. If you have further questions I’m always here to answer or go to the WP:TEAHOUSE or like said a initiate a site wide RFC. Celestina007 (talk) 13:36, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Former acting vice-chancellor is his highest academic role. "Civil servants who assume a political office on an interim or caretaker basis are not considered notable just for having briefly held that office, even if holders of the office are normally considered notable." Fails WP:GNG; WP:NPOL.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Osarhieme Osadolor until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dayo Israel (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Osarhieme Osadolor (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.
In July 2015 around 15.5% of the English Wikipedia's biographies were about women. As of July 2023, 19.61% of the English Wikipedia's biographies are about women. That's a lot of biographies created in the effort to close the gender gap. Happy 8th Anniversary! Join us for some virtual cake and add comments or memories and please keep on editing to close the gap!
