User talk:Sennalen

CLEANSTART account?

Is this a WP:CLEANSTART account? I have the impression that you have edited in this topic area before. Newimpartial (talk) 20:05, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I have not edited under any name for a year at least. I've edited in many controversial topics. Sennalen (talk) 20:17, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Were you eligible for a clean start? No relevant sanctions, etc.? Newimpartial (talk) 20:18, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I stopped only for lack of time. Sennalen (talk) 20:21, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

How long has it been since you edited Marxist cultural analysis, Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, or one of their Talk pages? Newimpartial (talk) 20:37, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Evidently, more than five years ago. Sennalen (talk) 20:57, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Sennalen, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Sennalen! 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 GreenMeansGo (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:01, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Standard ArbCom sanctions notice

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 post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. 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.

Newimpartial (talk) 15:36, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Standard ArbCom sanctions notice

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 gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. 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.

Newimpartial (talk) 15:38, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Notify

Just in case my earlier ping did not go through. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal 1: indefinite BLP topic ban (Æthereal) (non-admins can comment/vote). Also, happy new year! starship.paint (exalt) 16:20, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

User Review

I'm but a lowly IP editor, and somewhat of an SPA. But I feel Sennalen is still WP:NOTHERE for the right reason, and have seen them be very WP:TEND in their edits, and their approach to forming consensus. They have a big ego, and are more focused on being right, than on their goals and what they're trying to achieve here on Wikipedia. This is purely a subjective personal opinion. I may be wrong, but I thought enough about it to make this entry here. No doubt it will be removed to the history of this user talk page. It's a small protest, but a protest all the same. Sennalen - concede quicker when you are wrong. Re-affirm other more when they make a valid point (whatever it is)... and make sure to do a lot of self-care when you're on here. These arguments aren't everything. Often, they reveal more about YOU as a person, than about the content of Wikipedia. --124.170.170.79 (talk) 02:31, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I was wrong here[1] but that RfC closed without further discussion. Sennalen (talk) 02:41, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Nothing to do with my experience with you, not even on the same topic. --124.170.170.79 (talk) 01:25, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Here's how I think you should approach on the talk page, something like "Hi, I'm a wandering copy editor. I wish to make these changes to this section, to improve readability and clarity." - My whole problem with you, is that you approached claiming there was an error in this or that, that so-and-so source was misrepresented. When all those reasons were shot down - you went and made your (harmless) changes anyways. You need to approach and explain yourself better in my opinion. There's no point in creating multiple talk page sections to hash out issues if you're not making substantive changes. --124.170.170.79 (talk) 03:15, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate the concern, but there was OR in the lede. (There's still OR in the lede, but we're a step closer to fixing that the right way, per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY.) I got hit with a lot of verbiage aiming squarely at the bottom half of the hierarchy of disagreement, which I patiently coached people through refining. I don't resent it, since the final product is stronger than where I started, but you're right that it took far too much talk page activity to get there. If you want to take someone to task for that, start with the people who objected so strenuously yet vaguely to a harmless change. Sennalen (talk) 03:30, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm glad you at least see the problem, even if you seem completely unwilling to acknowledge that miscommunication takes two parties, and we're talking about you now. Perhaps, if you had have explained it as a harmless change from the start - things would have gone smoother and not required so much talk page activity. Perhaps then I wouldn't be on your talk page now. At any rate, just a suggestion, I don't want to extend this in the same regards. Best of luck on your return to Wikipedia, may your actions be clearly stated, and your arguments based in policy. --124.170.170.79 (talk) 07:17, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Standard ArbCom sanctions notice

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 COVID-19, broadly construed. 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.

Newimpartial (talk) 13:33, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Sennalen! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Visual edit diffs for old edits?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

cultural Marxism

If you want to use any of the sources at User:Tewdar/sandbox/page2# before I get a chance, feel free. Attribution is appreciated. They're not quite citable yet, but you can probably work it out. Tewdar (talk) 18:20, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for your work on COVID-19 lab leak theory. If I knew how to give you a star I would do it. Springnuts (talk) 22:45, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I hate it when an article is just a ball of claims in random order. It honestly wasn't much effort to knock some sense into it. Sennalen (talk) 00:33, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Popcorn time

Can't wait to see the reaction to this edit 🍿  Tewdar  15:47, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Apologies, apparently I haven't been paying attention - looks like that section has been there for a while...  Tewdar  15:51, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

No, I added it today. Some people will probably be unhappy, but it's a prominent theme in quality RS's we are already using. Sennalen (talk) 15:55, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

That probably won't affect the number of complaints. It never stopped anyone before now, anyway... 🙄  Tewdar  16:47, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Godfather. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

How to kill the hydra

I've heard you have to chop off all the heads at once. Oh well, at least it made me laugh. I do like "Potemkin article", by the way. I might have to steal that one. 😂  Tewdar  19:57, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

AE doesn't have to go straight for the jugular to have an effect. A filing lets offenders know that patience for their antics is finite. It also leaves a paper trail for the next time. Sennalen (talk) 21:58, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Sure, honey. Newimpartial (talk) 19:39, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

October 2022

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Bon courage (talk) 20:08, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:55, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Marxist cultural analysis merge discussion

Does this proposal, by any chance, precede another proposal on your part to expand the scope of the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory article to discuss supposedly "real cultural Marxism"? Asking for a friend...:p. Newimpartial (talk) 22:57, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

No. I have processed all of my bookmarks for things to add. What that means is it will soon be time for WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY, and the lead should not mis-lead (see what I did there) the reader into thinking conspiracy theories are the only use of the phrase "cultural Marxism". That should only take a sentence to clear up. Sennalen (talk) 23:13, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

And what would that added sentence achieve that is not aleady achieved by For "cultural Marxism" in the context of social theory and cultural studies, see Marxist cultural analysis and, for that matter, the first paragraph of the Frankfurt School section? It looks to a bystander as though you were creating a new problem (undoing a prior solution) in order to propose a different (not better) solution more to your liking. Newimpartial (talk) 23:21, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

It would achieve being in the lede, which neither a redirect message or a body paragraph do. WP:SUMMARYSTYLE Sennalen (talk) 23:29, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

If I wasn't clear, its not that the lede needs a single sentence added. The lede needs to be rewritten entirely to be consistent with the body and the reliable sources. Sennalen (talk) 23:33, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

If you are starting a project of rewriting the article lead by trying to merge away an article from which it is disambiguated right before the lead opens, that seems bass-ackwards to be. But what is your lead paragraph proposal, anyway? Newimpartial (talk) 23:36, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

It's not written. I might not get to it for months. I'm just telling you my plan for the article, since you asked. Sennalen (talk) 23:44, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

I just reviewed the lead section again, and I'm not seeing any noteworthy inconsistencies either with the article as a whole or with the underlying sources. I'm afraid you will be wasting your time. Newimpartial (talk) 23:46, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

I've asked for advice on your recent tactics across multiple pages on the Administration Notice Board.

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 203.220.137.141 (talk) 07:15, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Talk page violations

After casting aspersions on the editors who universally rejected the merge proposal you started as having based their !votes on "gut reaction" rather than informed disagreement [2], I warned you that this was a violation of our policy against WP:ASPERSIONS [3]. You then respnded by doubling down [4], pretending that the problem was that I was offended, rather than that you had acted offensively. I see that there is currently a case involving your conduct before ANI. I do not have the time to process what appears to be a very heated discussion there. But I can see from the small glimpse I've witnessed at Talk:Cultural studies that you will need to amend your behavior if you wish to continue editing Wikipedia. Generalrelative (talk) 23:34, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

The problem was never that you were offended. The problem is you did not take the time to read and understand the matter at hand before offering an opinion. By your own description you're continuing to do the same at ANI. It's fine if you don't want to spend time on it - WP:NOTMANDATORY - but you should consider withholding your comments until you have time to process the information. Sennalen (talk) 23:43, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I have not weighed in at the current ANI thread, nor do I plan to. Your behavior at the merge proposal alone is enough to see that you are not meeting the WP:CIVILITY requirement for editing Wikipedia. And now once again you have without evidence claimed that I based my !vote on something other than reasoned disagreement (i.e. that I "did not take the time to read and understand the matter at hand before offering an opinion"). I can insist that I did take the time to read and understand –– I can even let you know that I am a professional academic in a relevant field who knows this literature well –– but that is beside the point. Your continued insistence upon casting aspersions will result in sanctions sooner than later. That's frankly all I care to say to you. Generalrelative (talk) 00:05, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

There's absolutely nothing derogatory about "gut reaction". Your hypersenstive reaction combined with self-important pseudo-Administrator puffery is the incivility you should concern yourself with. Since you know the literature so well, maybe you could work on improving articles in the field instead of tilting at culture war windmills. Sennalen (talk) 01:33, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Your revert at Collaboration with the Axis powers

You should reverse yourself.

It is not ok to parachute into an article you've never touched or commented on, and start reverting in the name of consensus, in an article nobody is working on. In so doing you restored poorly sourced possible BLP violations to an article that's been publicly mocked in academia, wasted my time, and disrupted a solution that *had* already been reached with another editor, ie that I would copy the material to the redirect. So I'm asking you to make that right. I see you've said that you aren't actually a new editor, so I won't insult you by explaining that deleted text is still in the history. I will however offer you a bit of unsolicited advice that nonetheless think you should consider: there is no prize in Wikipedia for the speed of your reactions. You should read other editors' comments more and revert less. And undo this particularly ill-founded reversion. Elinruby (talk) 09:03, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

You do not WP:OWN the page. The external attention on the topic is exactly why the area needs new uninvolved page watchers. Blanking a section of cited material while discussion is ongoing is what's not okay. Now that another page actually holds the text, it's more appropriate to proceed. Sennalen (talk) 13:32, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

See, the part about WP:BRD that you aren't understanding is that reverts are supposed to be followed by discussion. In which you seem completely uninterested. So who is trying to OWN the article? In the interest of trying to explain this to you I am ignoring the ridiculous assertion above that I am somehow responsible for the condition of the article when I came to it seven or eight days ago. Have you read the text you are shoehorning back in? Have you looked at the freaking references? You clearly haven't looked at the history if you think I created the pointy piece of whatever that it was at that time. Do you realize that you actually disrupted a consensus of the users who were actually editing the page? Not just dropping by to impose their preconceptions?

One more time: if you aren't going to help, please get out of the way. Your assertions above are ridiculous on their face. I was invited to help with Vichy on the page just before the Village Pump post, and well after the creation of the problems the journal article describes, whose criticisms you are validating. You restored references that fail verification and allegations of collaboration against a number of people, sourced to an article that says the Polish government is wrong to call them collaborators.

You are mistaken and should revert yourself. Elinruby (talk) 01:27, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

There was discussion, with a consensus that the material should be on a new page before being deleted from the old page. It's on a new page, so you can delete it if you want. Why are you still arguing about this?

Also, the claim you said failed verification is right there behind the link on the ref. Check on that, and follow up on the artcile talk page. Sennalen (talk) 01:38, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

You're telling me what to do again. Which is especially annoying when it's something I have already done, and this is twice now. Believe it or not, it is friendly advice when I say you should slow down and read more before you react. I really suggest that you remove your error yourself. Elinruby (talk) 04:20, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Good point

I re-read your point about Fluvoxamine and the post on SBM which appears to end in a poem and seems to ignore the now vast literature of Fluvoxamine article reviews and meta-analyses, which carry statements such as "In this systematic review and bayesian meta-analysis of 3 clinical trials, which accounted for varying prior probabilities coupled with a frequentist sensitivity analysis, there was a high probability (94.1%-98.6%) that fluvoxamine was associated with a reduced risk for hospitalization" [5]. A more standoff-ish review meanwhile came up with: "Based on a low‐certainty evidence, fluvoxamine may slightly reduce all‐cause mortality at day 28, and may reduce the risk of admission to hospital or death in outpatients with mild COVID‐19. However, we are very uncertain regarding the effect of fluvoxamine on serious adverse events, or any adverse events." [6], and one was a firm: "Current evidence does not indicate a significant effect of fluvoxamine on the rates of hospitalization, mechanical ventilation, and mortality of patients with COVID-19 infection." [7], but then we have this from Nature: "As we discussed in this article, the mechanisms of action of fluvoxamine for COVID-19 are complex. Given the roles of sigma-1 receptor in the early-stage of virus replication and ASM in virus entry, fluvoxamine would be a potential prophylactic drug, reducing clinical deterioration in COVID-19 patients. Importantly, it should be taken in persons with COVID-19 as quickly as possible after SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmation. From the limited clinical data, fluvoxamine may be the most attractive candidate for early-stage COVID-19 patients." [8], and another from the Journal of Infection: "In conclusion, treatment with fluvoxamine did not decrease mortality and hospitalization rates in patients with COVID-19 but due to the imprecise CIs, a large possible benefit cannot be ruled out. The sensitivity analysis showing a statistically significant reduction in risk of hospitalization further reinforces this point and is highly encouraging. To strengthen these findings, further large-scale RCTs, especially for longer-term outcomes, are needed." [9]. Altogether a mixed bag for sure, but not one altogether with the SBM shit-slinging. One SBM line was : "No real, single, mechanism of action.", which seems directly contradicted by source 4 above. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:02, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Contentious topic alert - gender and sexuality

You have recently made edits related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them. This is a standard message to inform you that gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Contentious topics are the successor to the former discretionary sanctions system, which you may be aware of. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. For a summary of difference between the former and new system, see WP:CTVSDS. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:48, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

World War II and the history of Jews in Poland: Arbitration case opened

Hello Sennalen,

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 04, 2023, which is when the first evidence phase closes. Submitted evidence will be summarized by Arbitrators and Clerks at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland/Evidence/Summary. Owing to the summary style, editors are encouraged to submit evidence in small chunks sooner rather than more complete evidence later.

Details about the summary page, the two phases of evidence, a timeline and other answers to frequently asked questions can be found at the case's FAQ page.

For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For the Arbitration Committee,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:14, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

As per your expressed desire, I don't believe you're here for the right reasons.

Your desire to create one infinitely long article, which you've expressed | in your essay here, and you enact via a bias towards merging articles (unilaterally at times) - doesn't cohere with the expansion and cataloguing of human conceptions, events, things and ideas, which encyclopedia's are designed for. Your conduct when you attempt to force your views into reality, also doesn't align with Wikipedia's ethics of consensus and community building. Ergo, I don't believe you're here for the right reason, which should be to BUILD an encyclopedia, not to tear it down through the subversive removal of individual bricks, turning them into pebbles, and placing them on "parent articles" as you put it. Wikipedia is supposed to be expanded, not contracted. 220.235.229.181 (talk) 02:24, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

You completely missed the point of that essay. It's not a call to merge articles or actually create an infinitely long article. The point is to not be stingy about context and background sections. Sennalen (talk) 02:42, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

March 2023

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on COVID-19 lab leak theory. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Contested = take to talk. VQuakr (talk) 21:29, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

@VQuakr: I think you need to reflect on your own responsibility in contributing to an edit war by reverting authoritative academic sourcing with the sterling edit summary "rv irrelevant". I hope you will prompty visit the talk page to explain why the lab leak of a novel virus is irrelevant to the paragraph about novel viruses in a section on lab leaks. Sennalen (talk) 21:44, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

If you intend your novel inclusions at COVID-19 lab leak theory as a case in point for your infinite article theorem, perhaps this might be an opportunity to reflect on the extent to which this approach differs from the community norms embedded, for example, in WP:ONUS and the best practice WP:BRD. Newimpartial (talk) 21:50, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I know community practice often departs from the text of policies and the aim of building an encyclopedia. Were that not the case, I wouldn't need to write essays. Sennalen (talk) 21:54, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

It's astute of you to recognize the essay applies, though, so thanks for that. Sennalen (talk) 22:07, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Responsibility shift declined. The onus is on you to establish consensus for your proposed addition per WP:VNOT. VQuakr (talk) 21:57, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

@VQuakr: You cannot decline responsibility for WP:REVEXP. Discuss some substantive reasoning, or if you don't want that responsibility, then restore the page. Sennalen (talk) 22:06, 27 March 2023 (UTC)