User talk:Sethswirsky

First post

I was made aware of this dispute just now --this is seth Swirsky. I reverted the page back and here are my reasons: First, my article "Why I Left The Left" says why i left the left of the democratic party --it never once stated i had switched parties. it mentions my political henry 'scoop' jackson in the piece. it may be intimtaed that i elft the democratic party, i was careful not to write that. i can understand how moelarryjesus could think this, but it is not the case. my bio, which i wrote on the politicalmavens.com site, which i was asked to write for, states clearly what i consider myself (not what others consider me: a democrat in the tradition of henry "scoop" jackson. moreover, on my own website, where i have a blog, in a rebutal to a writer I again state my political affiliation (december 13, 2006) (http://www.seth.com/sethblogarchives/2006/12/to_democrats_it.html#more) when i wrote: "...democrats I admire of the past, like Henry "Scoop" Jackson would have done. I am still a democrat, but not a supporter of any of today's feckless democrats, but of yesterday's, like Jackson." It's quite unfair of one wikipedia contributor to continue to try and label me something other than what i am. as an aside, it's a tad creepy considering the personal email I have also received from this person and the amount of times it seems they continue to try and revert the page to who they think i am. I hope I've made my case clear --again, while to some i may appear to be a conservative, I'm a registered democrat, and as i say, one in the tradition of the late senator henry jackson. 22:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Reply

Thanks for your message—just letting you know (in case you didn't click the "watch" function to put my talk page on your watchlist) that I have replied to your first post there. I gave it a temporary subsection heading ("Bio") where you can find it by clicking on this: User talk:Athaenara#Bio. (I see now you posted again; I'll get to that next.) — Athænara ✉ 23:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC) (Section referred to is now archived.)[reply]

COI & BLP

Concerning the disruptive editing going on in the article about you, please be sure to read WP:COI and WP:BLP if you haven't already. These guidelines restrict your editing, but also the editing of others as well. If I were in your position I'd only consider making edits to the article itself in cases of poorly sourced, controversial material. I hope this helps with the current situation. --Ronz 02:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please help: I'm really asking that you boot this vandal MoeLarryjesus. He, again vandalized the page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Seth_Swirsky&diff=prev&oldid=109459929

Do you think i want to be involved in this? a little background: i write political articles that this guy has a very hard time with, clearly. i've gotten repeated emails from him --i will post them to prove it. they are quite nasty. he comes along and vandalizes the page --please see his comments starting from the beginning of this entire fiasco. When it's all semingly over, he now is trying to slander another section of the page (I just included the link). I'm asking for your help in this matter. If you have a rule to ban someone it was made for this person. I'm asking you to please look at the proof.Thank you. --Seth Swirsky 03:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not in much position to help, other than to do what I have here in pointing out what you can do. WP:BLP gives you a number of ways to proceed. In the meantime, MoeLarryAndJesus will almost certainly be blocked for a short time. He's a new editor, so he'll likely be given a chance to learn the guidelines here and demonstrate that he can follow them. --Ronz 05:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ronz, I do appreciate your time in this matter. But, I'm telling you, this guy doesn't have a problem "following guidelines". He knows exactly what he's doing. It started with a very nasty, personal email to me on february 9th, from him . It was very, shall we say, "angry" sounding aboout a political piece I had written. A few days later is when he started changing a well researched Wikipedia entry someone started on me awhile ago and others have added to. For four days, he has labeled me something I'm not without citing a single source. I am a democrat and there are three cites I have for that. Yet, he said I was a "self-described Conservative", citing nothing (because I'm not). I still offered him a compromise to stop the nonsense. He finally acceeded. 4 days and he hadn't edited another person. Take a look at the final edit where he says I once called myself a liberal but don't anymore -- check his notes and read what was really behind him saying that -- he called me warmongering, etc. Nice stuff (he later says he was "just kidding"). So, after a kind editor cited him for a number of violations (she understands that he's basically wikistalking me), today he adds the amazon.com sales # of a CD I've just released. Amazon sales numbers change by the hour, so it's not something a wikipedia reader would glean any true info from. Because it's a brand new record, the amazon # is high, which I could care less about. It's the fact that he is looking for things to disrupt this page -- succinctly, what he's doing is NOT in the spirit of information about a person, the thing that I love about Wikipedia -- Instead, his intention is to rile --all because of my political writing. Again, don't think this has to do with him not yet knowing how to correctly edit: it's about him stalking my page. --- Seth Swirsky 06:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

WP BLP

Seth, after I read Ronz's post, I gave a closer reading to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP, as Ronz refered to it, is the shortcut link to it). I noticed something in the "Dealing with articles about yourself" subsection which hadn't registered before:

"If you have a query about or problem with an article about yourself, you can contact Wikipedia via email."

That "contact" link goes to Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject), a thankfully brief page with clear instructions in the "Solutions" section. Take a look at it and see what you think—the user's emails might be addressed in this way, as well as the persistent disruption of the article and the injection of acrimony, even malice, on its talk page.

Keep your chin up, Seth! You have been subjected to a great deal of unpleasantness through no fault of your own. You are, I believe, behaving extremely well, especially considering the lengths to which one user has gone to cause you to suffer. — Athænara ✉ 09:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot tell you how much your help, but moreso, your encouraging words mean to me. Truly. Thank you very much, I will get right on this tomorrow morning. Again, thank you for understanding. Most Sincerely --- Seth Swirsky 09:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

You are very welcome. The recent post on Talk:Seth Swirsky#Third Opinion (Maybe the fourth) from Sanchom (talk | contribs) is encouraging as well. — Athænara ✉ 09:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it *was* encouraging (and i THANK YOU!) until MoeLarryJesus has now reverted it back 3 times again. Is this the very definition of "obsessive"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sethswirsky (talk • contribs) 17:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just for clarity: what I meant by "encouraging" was in the context in which MLJ's animosity and disruptions had driven off all the other editors but two, whom he was unremittingly attacking. Sanchom's post was a welcome change; at least two more editors have participated since then. — Athænara ✉ 08:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MLJ blocked 24 hours

MoeLarryAndJesus (talk • contribs) blocked as of 20:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC):[reply]

"blocked (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours"
"extreme 3RR violation (more than 10 reverts) after warnings"'

Full details in the block log. — Athænara ✉ 21:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, kids. MoeLarryAndJesus 04:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MLJ has been blocked indefinitely

Sethswirsky has been receiving coaching from Athaenara in dealing with User page vandalism and unpleasant e-mail by a third user, MoeLarryAndJesus. Athaenara has referred Seth to Newyorkbrad for comment regarding User page vandalism and unpleasant e-mails. Seth wants Moe permanently blocked from his User page. It appears that Proto has already permablocked Moe for trolling.

Seth, you are entitled to your political beliefs and you're entitled to express them. As long as they do not involve any expressions of bigotry I do not expect any real trouble for you here, although you will encounter an occasional troll like Moe. Just report people like that to your friendly neighborhood Administrator. Dino 11:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings and Salutations

To Sethswirsky:

Hello!

Congratulations!

You have been included in my first, and possibly only, Very Early Christmas List!

As an earnest fellow believer in Santa Claus, and possibly in Our Redeemer Liveth as well, you may wonder how you got on this list.

I have no idea!

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Unless I tracked down the connection in our user talk archives, in which case you know who you are!

Or not.

All the best for you and yours this Christmas 2018 and New Year 2019!

– Athaenara jingles all the way 02:44, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]