Jump to content

User talk:Sennecaster

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hello :)

Please remember to be civil when making comments on my talk page, place new discussions at the bottom of the page, keep discussions on the same page, and to sign your comments with ~~~~.

  • Please provide relevant articles if you have questions on any edits I make.
  • I work in copyright most frequently, if you need assistance I am happy to help.
  • I frequently use the edit summaries of "copyvio"/"CV", "close para", and "presumptive deletion"/"WP:PDEL" followed by urls or a CCI case. Please take care when reverting those edits, as you may unintentionally restore copyrighted content.

CSD criteria

[edit]

Hello, Sennecaster,

I was looking through Wikipedia:Database reports/Possibly out-of-process deletions to see if I had made any mistaken deletions and I saw some pages where you used the wrong CSD criteria. For example, you deleted Category:Wikipedia articles that may have off-topic sections from May 2010 as a CSD F4, which is for a file deletion, when it is actually CSD C4 which is for category deletions that are past their use-by-date. It's interesting to look over this list occasionally because it's easy to see that no matter how much experience an admin has on the project, we all can make mistakes. Take care and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 03:02, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I was d-batching maitnenace categories after cleaning a bunch and clearly meant to C4 them. Sennecaster (Chat) 03:05, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lana

[edit]

Hi - wondering why you moved the article Lana (album) to SOS Deluxe: Lana? It was clearly shown in the RM that the WP:COMMONNAME is just "Lana", and not "SOS Deluxe: Lana". Please could you reconsider, I strongly oppose this move. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 21:45, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was not clearly shown that "Lana" was the common name. One editor pointed to sources that use just "Lana", and another editor pointed to even more sources using the new article title. Additionally, a majority of editors were persuaded that WP:NATURAL should apply here even if "Lana" is the common name. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:02, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Amakuru, the arguments for WP:NATDIS were stronger than the opposing arguments put forth, and neither do I see a consensus for COMMONNAME trumping every other aspect of WP:CRITERIA. The RM was relisted three times and had a rough consensus when I looked at it. If you still disagree and wish to see it reversed, I will recommend going to MRV at this point as Voorts has provided an independent interpretation of consensus and I have very little else I to say. Sennecaster (Chat) 00:17, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, fair enough, if there isn't a consensus on the common name point then I guess it's not an issue. Your point about COMMONNAME is not correct though - where there's a clear common name, that always "trumps" any other reading of the criteria, per the line "When there is no single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic by these sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering these criteria directly". I can see that doesn't apply here though since there isn't an obvious common name, so no harm done and I withdraw my objection - good close, thank you.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:47, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your point; I was saying that there isn't a clear argument for COMMONNAME that was put forth, no consensus about what the COMMONNAME was, and thus the matter of COMMONNAME didn't have consensus to overrule everything in this particular case. The mysteries of RM are beyond me, but at least this isn't like the royalty RMs from last year :) Sennecaster (Chat) 17:25, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect, thanks. And you're doing well by the way... always a difficult line to tread between "votes" and "policy-based consensus" anyway, particularly when editors come along with strong opinions that don't seem to match the sitewide guidelines. Royalty seems a particular cause of controversy! Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 18:33, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A fox for you!

[edit]

For being an underappreciated editor!

qcne (talk) 18:44, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thank you! :) Sennecaster (Chat) 19:30, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Happy holidays!

[edit]

Hello Sennecaster: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 21:19, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 21:19, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Happy holidays, @MrLinkinPark333. It's always a pleasure to work alongside you. May you be warm and dry as winter sets in. :) Pennecaster (Chat with Senne) 03:46, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:JammyManBand

[edit]

Hi I would like to appeal the deletion of JammyManBand - as I am trying to learn how to do a WIKI page. I used the artist's bio thinking I would edit it down or ask someone like you for help. Can you pleaes reactivate? I will go back and fix the info and maybe you can help me? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JammyManBand (talk • contribs) 19:35, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@User:JammyManBand, hi, I deleted your userpage because it was a very promotional page, and because we don't want new pages on people's main userpage. Your draft without the copied content is at User:JammyManBand/sandbox, although we require that all articles are written with neutral language and with reliable, independent sources. You also cannot copy and paste any content into Wikipedia and hit "save edit" unless it is public domain or has specific Creative Commons licenses, which is why I removed content from your sandbox. Editing down a biography is not a good idea; it's better to summarize everything in your own words without basing it directly on the source. It takes practice, but getting it right is important because we cannot violate copyright policy. Lastly; your username currently implies that you are a role account, which is not allowed. Wikipedia:Changing username has instructions that are really useful. If anything is unclear, I'm not the best person to advise you here, so you'll have better luck at the Teahouse, but I really do recommend requesting a new username as soon as you can. Sennecaster (Chat) 20:42, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ok - as I am new at this I understand certain things are allowed. I am not really understanding some of this so please be patient with me. I have tried to look around for help it's not very clear. The info that was submitted was original writing for sure and is on the band's website so it's public. I am not understanding the username - I didn't get any error or rejection so I thought it was ok. I will go check out the Teahouse. JammyManBand (talk) 22:10, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JammyManBand; our username rejection method is mostly to prevent clearly abusive usernames (like slurs), but we don't allow names that imply that multiple people are using an account or names that are overly promotional and encourage people to rename. I don't want you to get blocked, you're clearly passionate and not trying to spam. The info that was submitted was original writing for sure and is on the band's website so it's public - We try not to use sources that are directly connected to the topic. It would be best to find things like news articles independently reviewing the band. Furthermore, anything on the internet carries a copyright claim even if it isn't publicly stated, and we need a clear declaration that it is public domain or licensed with Creative Commons to be copied here. Lastly; I get that so much stuff is confusing. We're slowly trying to improve our instructions, especially for newer users, but there's a lot of work to be done. For now, you can always reach out to your mentor or ask on the teahouse, and I wish you the best of luck. Sennecaster (Chat) 18:39, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - I am trying to figure out if I go back and fix my errors on this page or start over. I would like to keep this one if i could. I am glad to change out the language.
I am reaching out to teahouse. Thank you. JammyManBand (talk) 14:38, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We don't typically like people drafting articles on their main userpage - User:Sennecaster for me and User:JammyManBand for you. Your draft is currently at User:JammyManBand/sandbox, and you are free to work on it there. Your main userpage should tell us about you, or contain links for your own convenience, or be blank. Sorry that this reply is a bit shorter, I'm getting busier IRL now. Sennecaster (Chat) 16:28, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the tip! I will do it there. JammyManBand (talk) 22:31, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

D.18th

[edit]

I left you a note that I've undone your block on this user, since you explicitly referred to an interaction ban from January which I had told them (in March and again in August) no longer applied. I had removed the log of their interaction ban from WP:EDR but you added it back; I've just removed it again. I don't think I realized that my block log entry had "interaction ban" right in it, but I've updated the log to try to correct that. I didn't know that Aidillia managed to get unblocked, but as far as I know they are still under the interaction ban. I haven't looked much more into the draft issue. Courtesy ping jlwoodwa. Cheers. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:33, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question

[edit]

I'm trying to act in good faith so I wanted to take this off-line so that we don't continue overwhelming the nomination. I have a question and I genuinely wanna understand. If I don't understand after this, I just won't understand... but why can concerns about Suzanne Conklin Akbari and COI above be listed but not my question about the policy? Docmoates (talk) 23:02, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what the monitor team said and what Voorts also saw, I commented specifically because the AfD that was linked to originally is ongoing according to the monitor team - if there was a similar AfD that was closed, that would have been fine, but the concern was primarily around WP:CANVASS and that linking to an ongoing discussion would have brought attention that normally wouldn't be there. Especially around high visibility pages like an EFA or RFA, even if you're not intending to canvass you can accidentally do so and it's always better to err on the side of caution and not mention ongoing discussions outside of neutral notices like a delsort or notifying a project of a policy proposal. For the record - it took me a couple months to really learn how to navigate the CANVASS policy, and I really don't want you getting into trouble. The Akbari and COI thing is not currently subject to an ongoing consensus building discussion, to answer your second part. Sennecaster (Chat) 00:04, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ARC notice

[edit]

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Pbsouthwood and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 15:26, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sennecaster&oldid=1326901442"