User talk:Seth4u2nvcs

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Seth4u2nvcs, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Jim Morrison. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Badgernet (talk) 15:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I'll try my signature here. Seth4u2nvcs (talk) 16:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Nyannrunning (3rd) for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proper procedure at this point is to desist in returning nearly identical materials that were first added by a confirmed sock puppet as determined by Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Nyannrunning (2nd) until the present sock puppet case is resolved. Until that time, these particular versions will continue to be reverted to an earlier version. Your insistence, as a supposedly new editor, that these particular versions be presented only strengthens the evidence already presented at the case. If you have evidence to present at the case to support that you are indeed, not a sock puppet, it needs to be presented quite soon. Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proper procedure is to find out what Esquire is and to stop accusing someone of imagining the magazine. I am going to defend myself at the puppet hearing, but I'm saying my thing here, too. Seth4u2nvcs (talk) 23:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can find no place where anyone accused you of imagining anything. However, I do find an edit summary stating "no contention over Esquire magazine, reverting due to additions by sock puppet." That specifically says there is no challenge to the existence of an Esquire magazine article, and that the material was removed, per Wikipedia policy, which directs that all edits by a sock puppet be removed.

I also find an edit summary on Wonderland Avenue which states "this is synthesis of material to attempt to disprove book, vio WP:OR." I refer you to WP:OR, which states "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position." It appears that on the Wonderland Avenue article, that your reversion of the article to a version of the article, written by a proven sock puppet, which contained uncited statements such as "Few of the sordid scenes in the book were reported by newspapers or magazines in the 1970s, but those few that were suggest that Sugerman's memory failed him occasionally" and "Describing his drug-fueled co-dependent friendship with actress Mackenzie Phillips, he asserts that her publicized arrest on drug-related charges happened during the period of his life that constitutes the book, a period that ended with his hospitalization at age 21...The publicized arrest to which he refers occurred, however, in November of 1977, which was a month after Sugerman turned 23 and during the period he worked on the book No One Here Gets Out Alive, which was published early in 1980." This constitutes synthesis of material to prove that the book in question is in error. By Wikipedia policy, this is original research and cannot be allowed to remain in an article. This also raises issues with reference to Mackenzie Phillips in regard to violations of biographies of living persons in the description of the relationship between the book's author and Phillips which could be construed as libellous and is therefore counter to Wikipedia policy. As a newcomer to Wikipedia, you really should acquaint yourself with such policies prior to taking position for an earlier problematic version of an article which violates Wikipedia policies. AndToToToo (talk) 00:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many Wikipedia articles about non-fiction books point out errors in them. Have you read the ones about The Lives of John Lennon and No One Here Gets Out Alive ? The latter was written by the same author as Wonderland Avenue. Your defense of one particular book makes no sense. Also, how can the Los Angeles Times article libel Mackenzie Phillips when the Wikipedia article on her goes into great detail about her substance abuse in the 1970s? If you think she's going to sue Wikipedia because it quotes from a book written by a dead person she knew personally, then you need to explain that further. I don't understand what you're saying in the slightest. The only point you might be making is that everything Danny Sugerman wrote about himself and his still-living friends has to be true, but his remarks about the long-dead Jim Morrison in No One Here Gets Out Alive can get shot down by any and all. If that's not your point, I don't get it at all. Seth4u2nvcs (talk) 02:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The issue regarding the Wonderland Avenue article has to do with your reverting the article to include material that was contributed by a confirmed and banned sock puppet master, most of which was returned word for word. The details are in the sock puppet case above. It doesn't really matter what the defense of the contribution is, it was contributed by a confirmed sock puppet, and by Wikipedia policy, should be removed. By returning this nearly verbatim, you only strengthen the sock puppet case. As it is, I am not defending this book in any way, I am stating very clearly that the issue has to do with the contributions by a sock puppet master, and returned by you, and other editors who are identified in the sock puppet case as being related. However, the contributions are not especially NPOV, and that further makes them problematic. The wording, as I mentioned above, is poor in regard to neutrality: "sordid scenes", "drug-fueled co-dependent friendship". As far as the other articles about Sugerman books, The Lives of John Lennon is somewhat fairly well sourced, and criticisms are based on direct quotes from cited sources. The No One Here Gets Out Alive needs to be sourced. However, in Wonderland Avenue, the contribution includes direct analysis of what the book says, and including an article about the arrest of Mackenzie Phillips, which doesn't mention Sugerman or this book, presented as evidence that the book is in error, constitutes synthesis. If this were to be adequately presented in the article, someone else would have to have written this analysis and it be published somewhere accessible to readers. The fact that User:Nyannrunning originally wrote about this connection in the article, and which you ultimately returned, does not make it acceptable, based on WP:OR. It's that simple. Meanwhile, it doesn't require that Phillips is going to sue Wikipedia for libel to remove inflammatory language regarding her, it only requires that the libellous contribution is here. Wikipedia policy forbids it. AndToToToo (talk) 06:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

June 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on User talk:Badgernet. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. A sock puppet case is not a personal attack upon the person against whom the case has been opened. It is a Wikipedia policy investigation. Please refrain from making personal attacks upon editors in response, such as this, where you refer to the person who opened the sock puppet case as "an unbalanced editor." If you have specific evidence to present at your sock puppet case, then direct your attention to addressing that case and do not spend your energies attacking others or soliciting outside help not related to the sock puppet case. At this time, your attention should be directed toward that. AndToToToo (talk) 18:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That editor, Wildhartlivie, attacked me by saying I invented an article in Esquire. Check the March 1991 issue of Esquire and you will find that Wildhartlivie is imagining. Seth4u2nvcs (talk) 23:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See the above response for details regarding your assertion that you were attacked regarding this article's existence. AndToToToo (talk) 00:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to ban me from Wikipedia for whatever reason you're not making clear, that's fine. I'm concerned about Doors fans missing out on a citation from Esquire 17 years ago. It's an excellent cover article written by someone who knew Jim Morrison and his girlfriend Pamela Courson personally, starting in 1966 before they became famous. The writer, Eve Babitz, says some things about Courson's possible violent behavior, interest in handguns and severe drug habit that you might not want to hear, but the sad thing is you might ban them from Wikipedia.

I understand that you approve of Esquire as a source. After you ban me are you going to remove the Babitz segment of Courson's Wikipedia article based on the idea that if I'm somebody's puppet, then I have poisoned a 17-year-old magazine article? If that's not your reasoning, then you got me. Can I request that you at least allow casual Doors fans -- meaning those who spend little or no money to get information about the band -- to read Ms. Babitz's statements? They are not on any web site. I have the 17-year-old issue of Esquire that I bought all those years ago. Does your reasoning have to do with the fact that Ms. Babitz does not have her own Wikipedia article like Danny Sugerman does? Seth4u2nvcs (talk) 02:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I neither approve nor disapprove of the Esquire source. This again, is based on your reversion of the article to a version written by a confirmed and banned sock puppet. The Esquire article is not tainted, however the contributions first added by the sock puppet are to be removed by policy. It is curious that on two separate articles, you have sought out, and restored nearly verbatim, versions written by a sock puppet master account and one of its sock puppets. It's also curious that User:Debbiesvoucher, the sock puppet, used quotes directly from the same magazine that you bought 17 years ago, and you restored verbatim. Again, this strengthens the sock puppet case currently pending. The content here isn't the issue, it's the sock puppet issue. You would have to read the sock puppet case to find the reference to a Senator from Indiana, and consult the page history for Wonderland Avenue. An editor, using the username User:Evanbayh, which since it is the name of a high profile congressman, was banned also, reverted the article to the version written by the banned sock master account, User:Nyannrunning. It's in the sock puppet case, which is the issue. You might want to read WP:SOCK, which will explain the sock puppet policy very clearly. AndToToToo (talk) 06:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you know anything about the strong fan base of The Doors, then you would know that many fans bought that issue of Esquire 17 years ago and saved it, and many are willing to become sock puppets in order to spread trivia. The following statements you made show your naivete about the Doors following:

"It is curious that on two separate articles, you have sought out, and restored nearly verbatim, versions written by a sock puppet master account and one of its sock puppets. It's also curious that User:Debbiesvoucher, the sock puppet, used quotes directly from the same magazine that you bought 17 years ago, and you restored verbatim."

We're talking about the Doors, not a forgotten entertainer like Lord Buckley. Seth4u2nvcs (talk) 15:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not willing to continue this discussion further than this response if you are not responding to the actual issue here. We are not talking about issues regarding the Doors, we are talking about issues regarding sock puppets. None of this has anything to do with whether The Doors have a huge fan base, and please do not assume that I am naive regarding them, nor whether 1, or 10,000,000 copies of that particular Esquire edition is still around. Nor does it have to do with Eve Babitz or what she is doing today. I would, however, like for you to point out to me where you are having a dialogue with User:Wildhartlivie? I find nothing on the pertinent talk pages, where that editor and yourself have exchanged discussion. You are correct on one point, many people are willing to become sock puppets and hide behind new names after they have been banned in order to continue editing, n'est-ce pas?

Please try to understand that my questioning about your actions on these articles has nothing to do with the sourcing, the veracity of the contribution, the validity of sources, or anything directly relating to what was said in the edits to the book article or Courson's article. The entire question, and the one raised in the sock puppet case, is why and how you, as a supposed newbie, came into articles that User:Nyannrunning and User:Debbiesvoucher (who are proven and banned sock puppets, along with User:Dooyar and a number of IP addresses) had edited, and just happened to find in a history, within just 11 minutes after you registered, and restored verbatim, paragraphs written by that particular person. You did not write the Babitz paragraph on Pamela Courson, you restored it from that person's edit, which was made here, and you restored, verbatim, here. Similarly, on the Wonderland Avenue article, the earlier mentioned sock puppet added the paragraph beginning "Few of the sordid scenes..." here, and you restored, verbatim, here. The Wonderland Avenue article, prior to the initial contribution of this paragraph by User:Nyannrunning, had only had six edits in the two and a half years since the article was first written. How is it possible that you wrote the exact same addition, word for word, as a sock puppet on an article so obscure and ignored that only six edits were made in 28 months? Coincidences like these simply do not happen.

The sock puppet case is not dead, it is caught in a rather large backlog at the present and will be dealt with, as it was with the User:Nyannrunning case, which, when the relevant adminstrators investigated, was a slam-dunk that those editors were related. Patterns of editing and verbatim wording is simply icing on the cake. AndToToToo (talk) 17:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<< The entire question, and the one raised in the sock puppet case, is why and how you, as a supposed newbie, came into articles that User:Nyannrunning and User:Debbiesvoucher (who are proven and banned sock puppets, along with User:Dooyar and a number of IP addresses) had edited, and just happened to find in a history, within just 11 minutes after you registered, and restored verbatim, paragraphs written by that particular person. >>

Within just eleven minutes? Doors fans are reading and reacting to Wikipedia articles much more frequently than every eleven minutes. If it's a Wikipedia article about, say, Lord Buckley, then eleven minutes is suspicious. His article is lucky to get a new edit once a month. But the Courson and Wonderland Avenue articles to which you are referring have a lot to do with the Doors. How is that not relevant to the sock puppet case? I'm reprinting this on the sock puppet case page because it's relevant and concise. I'm trying not to be loquacious here. Seth4u2nvcs (talk) 18:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it isn't an issue of how many people edit, or don't edit a page. The question raised is why, when you had just registered, within 11 minutes, you restored specific content contributed by the two sock puppets above. The Courson article gets a smaller bit of addition, but until the contributions by the sock puppet, the Wonderland Avenue article had only been edited six times in 28 months. That's a lot less than once a month. That's more along the lines of 2 or 3 edits a year. So it's not a case of edits being considered all the time. The other question is, if you added this content on your own, why was it a verbatim version of that added by the sock puppets. These are the points that should be addressed in the sock puppet case, not whether the articles are high or low profile. I don't see any productiveness in this conversation, so I see no reason why it should continue. AndToToToo (talk) 21:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the content written by Eve Babitz because I didn't know those two contributors were sock puppets. I was new. If you disappear, fine, but my conscience is clear knowing this comment is here. I did my part. I recognized the name Eve Babitz and I tried to restore it to the article even though you've never heard of her. What part of that do people not understand ? If nobody replies to this, I can assume they aren't trying hard enough. Seth4u2nvcs (talk) 01:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]