User talk:Sennagod

Layla Love

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!

Hi Sennagod! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Lectonar (talk). Visit the Teahouse 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!

Hello, Sennagod. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
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

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

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

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

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.

Template:Z33 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)

You have been blocked for 31 hours from editing for violations of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:17, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Sennagod (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Talk Page was ignored and edits reverted. Sennagod (talk) 18:21, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Talk Page was ignored and edits reverted. [[User:Sennagod|Sennagod]] ([[User talk:Sennagod#top|talk]]) 18:21, 29 July 2021 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Talk Page was ignored and edits reverted. [[User:Sennagod|Sennagod]] ([[User talk:Sennagod#top|talk]]) 18:21, 29 July 2021 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Talk Page was ignored and edits reverted. [[User:Sennagod|Sennagod]] ([[User talk:Sennagod#top|talk]]) 18:21, 29 July 2021 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Frankly I finished my edits after researching and now only am perplexed why accurate fact-checking gets reverted with blogs or a gossip column. The rules are not being following in this edit warring as editors here seem fine to put forth incorrect information about Gloria Steinem. She supported an art show opening which honored her writing by using her iconic quotations. It doesn’t mean involvement in a nonprofit or an ongoing fundraising project to simply be an honored guest at a gallery event showing art. It’s only fair to say Gloria approved of her iconic quotes used next to photographs in support of a mentored friend or aquaintance. Are there any articles, interviews or posed pictures of Ms. Steinem discussing or promoting this project that honors her? This all reads to me as publicly for the photographer. Some people seem fine here in calling a project a nonprofit although a nonprofit must be registered. Also some people here seem fine in pretending an idea shared in the presence of Ms. Steinem with is a collaboration or a partnership. How many people has Ms. Steinem directly influenced or mentored? One editor felt a gossip column article in Page Six is proof of a nonprofit. It even named the man who was the curator making him the actual collaborator not her. There should be nothing vague if Gloria does indeed have the association being claimed here and not on her namesake website even in her lengthy biography.