User talk:Sennagod
Layla Love[edit]
I cut more stuff and tagged the article with references needed, which in my opinion is a better choice than starting an AfD. David notMD (talk) 21:55, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
- @David notMD, seconding David, tagging is a better option, you seem to be barely 12 hours old (or less?) if i may ask, why have you chosen to nominate or attempt to nominate the account for deletion? If you don’t mind me saying, Should we be worried about any off wiki backstory we have no knowledge about? Celestina007 (talk) 23:27, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
I agree if the artist is proven to be notable through properly sourced references the page could be filled out with facts instead of name checking and gross exaggerations. How is a commerce site a part of her biography? Sennagod (talk) 01:51, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
- If you mean her own website, I agree that should be an external link rather than a ref. I removed the PROD, as I believe the article should be improved rather than deleted without debate. I suggest you start an AfD if in your opinion its existence is not warranted. David notMD (talk) 10:15, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
- Per PROD rules, if a PROD is contested, it cannot be restored. David notMD (talk) 03:57, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Sennagod, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]
|
Hi Sennagod! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:01, 12 July 2021 (UTC) |
Teahouse talkback: you've got messages![edit]
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:29, 16 July 2021 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).
Layla Love[edit]
Clearly, this article has become a focus of your attention. Rather than remove content piecemeal (I have reverted your latest edits), I beseech you to submit an AfD, so that experienced article reviewers can comment over a period of 1-2 weeks, and then a final decision made by an Administrator. Even if you believe content is in error or unreferenced, all that should remain as evidence to consider at the AfD. When creating the AfD, you have the opportunity to explain all of your reasons. AfD is not a rare process. Of the millions of existing articles, tens of thousands of them do not meet current standards, and are deletion-worthy. David notMD (talk) 11:35, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
- Either AfD the article or stop editing it. David notMD (talk) 10:01, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Consider yourself very lucky is a very obnoxious section here by AndyTheGrump[edit]
If I hadn't just started a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents on an unrelated subject, I'd have reported your latest posts [1] there, calling for you to be blocked from editing. Instead, I've removed them, as a violation of WP:BLP policy, and a personal attack. Wikipedia is not a platform for the pursuit of personal grudges, and if you aren't prepared to take advice about how this place actually works, your presence here is likely to be a short one. I suggest you find something more useful to do elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:11, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
- If an ANI is submitted, one possibility is that you would be blocked from editing this article and its Talk page; another is that you would be blocked from all editing for a limited or indefinite amount of time. David notMD (talk) 13:52, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Consider both your comments as wasted here and misdirected. I doubt you both came from no where and you are not here to put forth factual information. There’s no personal attack except by you both to me. I suggest you guys find a different place to put forth your personal opinions. Sennagod (talk) 03:48, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
AndyTheGrump Here’s something for you to read if you enjoy feedback. Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers Sennagod (talk) 04:07, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
- Here's some 'feedback' for you: your failed attempt to start an AfD discussion [2] isn't going to get you anywhere, since (1) it wasn't done according to instructions, (2) doesn't constitute proper grounds for deletion, and (3) might well get you blocked for violating WP:BLP policy. Wikipedia isn't a platform to engage in personal attacks on article subjects. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:28, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
There’s not one personal attack here. You are not discussing the topic or fact-checking. Did you ever read the article I posted above? What about this one? Wikipedia:Five_pillars Sennagod (talk) 05:33, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
- The topic here is your behaviour. And your inability to follow instructions, as demonstrated yet again at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard where you have failed to include the names of those you are in dispute with. Or to explain in any detail the specifics of the dispute. Do you really expect DRN Volunteers to read through entire article and talk page histories to figure out what the heck it is they are supposed to be moderating a discussion over? AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:41, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
False, I have only put forth factual information. My behavior is in check reacting to your rudeness. You even deleted my comments here on my own talk page which is unsettling. Volunteers are here to help and should show good will. I have no intention to continue with you unless you discuss the subject which is not me or you.Sennagod (talk) 13:23, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Notification[edit]
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Sennagod and WP:BLP policy with regard to the Layla Love biography.. Thank you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:40, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
July 2021[edit]
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:00, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Hello. I have been discussing it. I appreciate your insight. Sennagod (talk) 15:54, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Given where things stand now, I suggest you make no more edits to Layla Love or the Talk page, while waiting to learn the decision at the Deletion Discussion. If the article is deleted, that ends the situation. If not, the Discretionary sanctions process mentioned above includes the option that an Administrator could permanently block you from editing the article or its Talk page, depending on the nature of your future edits. David notMD (talk) 11:56, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
I would think you should be barred for putting it unverified information. What is your reasoning to do so against Ms. Steinem? Sennagod (talk) 15:54, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:17, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Admin decision on Layla Love is keep. David notMD (talk) 01:09, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
I find it strange that you show up with AndyTheGrump everytime. Are you connected? I will appeal this decision as I suspect people are not being honest here. Sennagod (talk) 04:59, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- Your improper attempt to override the AfD decision has been reported at WP:ANI. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:04, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
August 2021[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:12, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- The matter is closed. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:14, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
User: Cullen is very complimenting and friendly with AndyTheGrump on his Talk Page. Seems you aren’t here to uphold the rules unless selectively. Noted. Check if AndyTheGrump and David notMD are connected or one in the same. Sennagod (talk) 05:39, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- Spurious conspiracy theories will get you nowhere. I am not at all friendly with Andy the Grump although I pay attention to any issue that any editor brings in good faith to my talk page. As for the notion that he is connected with David notMD, I consider that ridiculous and you are obligated to present solid evidence when you make such accusations. Where's the evidence? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:04, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
User:Cullen You are friendly with AndyTheGrump. To say you are not all is not being honest. You want evidence of this? This is your quote on AndyTheGrump’s Talk Page. “you are doing excellent work here now, and I for one appreciate it. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:18, 24 March 2021” Sennagod (talk) 06:14, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- That was in the context of welcoming back an editor who had retired for five years. How can I be friendly with someone I have only had a handful of interactions with in a six year period? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:33, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
You exact quote was you were “not at all friendly with AndyTheGrump”. You lied, just quit trying to deny you were busted. Sennagod (talk) 12:41, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Sennagod (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Cullen lied or forgot he is friendly with user AndyTheGrump and has taken a clear side.Sennagod (talk) 00:47, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
- the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
- the block is no longer necessary because you
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 02:06, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
It didn’t go unnoticed that there is no way a photographer is notable without being in a prominent galley or museum. They would also need to be featured in a prominent medium. Paid editors are problematic here as their friends will support them even when pushing falsehoods about important figure like Gloria Steinem.
Read this if you still are pretending to uphold the policies here. We can say any artist is good and doing good work. We cannot say they are notable.
“Creative people
Scientists, academics, economists, professors, authors, editors, journalists, movie makers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals:
The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. The person is known for starting a significant new concept, theory or technique. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work. This work has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length movie, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.” Sennagod (talk) 06:02, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
User: AndyTheGrump even reverted my comments on the Gloria Steinem Talk Page. That’s suspicious. He’s fine to have falsehoods that she cofounder a nonprofit (now “conceived”) put in another’s biography but not in hers? What’s the problem if this is truly correct information? Why not defend it rather than hide it? What’s AndyTheGrump’s agenda? Sennagod (talk) 06:02, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
August 2021[edit]
You are now indefinitely blocked from editing Layla Love and Talk: Layla Love because you are pursuing a grudge against this living person. Please read Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks. If you attack this person again, you will be indefinitely blocked from the entire encyclopedia. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:11, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
I finished edited it. It’s being reverted to push falsehoods. The notability claim only needs to be appealed. Let’s see if you can make a case why this artist is notable instead of some power trip editors have here. Gloria Steinem is being namechecked here for a role in a project that’s not hers. Poor research skills on fact checkers here is the problem and a grudge against my persistence of the facts. You were dishonest or forgot you are friendly with AndyTheGrump. Unsettling. Sennagod (talk) 00:44, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
In answer to an earlier comment, my interest in this article started when you posted a question at Teahouse, as I am a Teahouse host. I have no connection to any of the editors who have contributed to Layla Love, or the Talk page, or the AfD, or your being blocked. If you have any interest in continuing as a Wikipedia editor now that you have been indefinitely blocked on this topic, I suggest you read Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass and some of the links provided at the end of that short essay. A hyper-combative approach never succeeds. David notMD (talk) 10:57, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
I suggest you learn how to fact check properly and not just out respect for icons such as Ms. Steinem. I see you are all friendly and that’s the connection. Sennagod (talk) 00:44, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- I reverted your edit at User:Cullen. Comments belong on the talk page. However, if you post aggressive commentary you may call attention to your contributions and a consideration of whether you are here to help improve the encyclopedia. People who are not working towards that goal are removed per WP:NOTHERE. Johnuniq (talk) 03:23, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
How did you know about it? Are you friendly with Cullen? Does your comment apply for everyone or just me? Will you be addressing AndyTheGrump’s unfriendky comments towards me calling my comments “moronic” and “crap”. I await you doing something. It’s pretty obvious my edits are factual and I’m working to improve this encyclopedia. Others seem to be working to promote people with falsehoods and exaggerations and we’ll likely know their motivation. Sennagod (talk) 04:07, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- There are no secrets on Wikipedia. Everyone can see what everyone does. We all try to be friendly with each other here. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 04:17, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Exactly why I was able to expose the dishonesty of User:Cullen. Some people simply shouldn’t be refereeing anything here if they have no integrity. AndyTheGrump undid edits exposing his bad manners and insults my way. Another scam of an editor. As far as trying to be friendly, I didn’t have that experience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sennagod (talk • contribs) 12:31, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
I suggest you sit out this block. Your continued assumptions of bad faith and attacks against editors here are about to get your talk page access revoked and the duration of your block increased. Wait it out, and when it is over try to get along with others. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 12:49, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
I didn’t assume bad faith, I showed Cullen lied about knowing this person here. The bad faith was these editors ganging up on me and AndyTheGrump calling my edits “moronic” and “crap”. There is notability of this artist by Wikipedia’s guidelines. That’s the issue no one will address. Why are you only critical of my edits? Sennagod (talk) 12:53, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Blocked indefinitely[edit]
The massive amounts of assumptions of bad faith and character assassination seen on this page alone, complemented by disruptive editing such as changing this header by AndyTheGrump into an attack on AndyTheGrump,[3] convinces me that you are not here to help build an encyclopedia. I have blocked you indefinitely. You know how to appeal a block, since you have been told several times. Bishonen | tålk 15:30, 4 August 2021 (UTC).
You can abuse your authority here as you wish but the truth remains that AndyTheGrump showed the bad faith by reverting my edits and undoing my messages to hide them. He called my edits “moronic” and “crap”. I would like to know the character assassination you feel I have done. Be specific.
Sennagod (talk) 20:15, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
August 2021[edit]
(block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.