Talk:Daniel Sieradski

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

possible COI/non-notable person[edit]

A lot of these sources seem self-referential. Many are out of date. I don't believe this person is notable. Not sure i did this correctly, but this entire article seems beefed up to promote this guy, and i don't think wikipedia was created so that people can promote themselves in this manner. --Getitrightfolks (talk) 15:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Getitrightfolks. I did what I could to add balance to this Wikipedia entry but ultimately it seems that the subject used to be a notable blogger and now just works for the Jewish community while working on some half completed projects here and there. Many of the references point to his current or former blogs, I believe the reproduction of the article from Tikkun is copyright infringement as well. Also note that the subject attempted to undo some of my reasonable modifications. I don't think there's any way to save this entry. Wrongtired18 (talk) 16:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've been working on it a little bit more, to take out the self-referential, self-promotional material and strip this down to the basics and well-sourced material. I'm not sure how to mark this article for deletion properly, but I don't see this blogger as notable enough to remain in Wikipedia. --Getitrightfolks (talk) 05:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Outright butchering of the article would be a better description of your edits. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 05:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm happy to work with any editors who would like to rebuild this article, or decide if this person is notable enough to be in Wikipedia. Again, there seems to be serious conflict of interest issues and I didn't think Wikipedia was a place for people to promote themselves in this manner. --Getitrightfolks (talk) 08:56, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is what usually happens when the subject writes his own entry. It seemed ok at first glance until you realized that it was in fact self promotional, to the extreme, with references to the writer's own blog. Another problem I noticed after researching the subject of the article, is that he is, or was, quite controversial and none of that is reflected in his Wikipedia entry. Now he has a middle management position at a Jewish organization and I am afraid that despite all my hard work trying to properly edit this article, he mostly fails the notability test. But I'm willing to hear otherwise. -- Wrongtired18 (talk) 14:08, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Getitrightfolks, your last edits, where you felt it necessary to insert reference to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and where you scoffed at the Forward's designation of the subject as well known in the Jewish blogosphere, strongly implies that your edits were ideologically motivated. I think I have no choice but to roll everything back to the way the article was prior to your edits. Your initial criticisms were valid, this article does seem like it was mostly written by the subject, but that's no excuse to butcher it entirely and then add ideologically motivated and unsourced content. Wrongtired18 (talk) 09:42, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, WrongTired, I went a little too far. I have since removed that reference and my scoffing, though my edits were not ideologically motivated. The more research I did on Mr. Sieradiski, the more I learned things I did not like and it did impact my POV a bit. Again, I have taken out the elements which were inappropriate. My apologies about that. Part of it comes from the fact that I don't think that this person is notable enough to be in Wikipedia and because I find this self-promotion repulsive. I'm not sure how to properly nominate this article for deletion. I don't think it would be appropriate to roll back all my edits, especially as you agree that most of the material was self-referential and self-promotion and most likely there are some COI issues involved. That's why I'm happy to rebuild this article, so long as the subject is notable enough to warrant an article in the encylopedia. --Getitrightfolks (talk) 11:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:How to delete a page, particularly the last two sections. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 11:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I did that, then it was reverted. Still trying to figure it out. --Getitrightfolks (talk) 17:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


General discussion[edit]

't I if the first thing that comes up when you Google me is this entry? B. Some of the content of the entry was lifted directly from my blog, which was licensed under Creative Commons at the time this entry was originally written. I did not add it myself. C. Not a single reference in the article was to an entry on my blog. There were two to news articles cached on my server, which is the only place you'll find them if Googled. D. How can you claim your edits aren't politically motivated when the end result of your edits and your other sockpuppet's edits were to erase all positive information about my contributions to Jewish life in the last decade, save one that attempts to portray me as having questionable allegiances to Israel? It is no coincidence to me that your edits began shortly after I initiated my protest against 5WPR and I am certain that if I had access to your IP info, it would tie you back to 5W just like I tied Juda Engelymayer to impersonating Morris Alan while at JTA. Mobius1ski (talk) 12:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

27 edits were made anonymously by someone from the JTA's IP address while you were employed there. As noted by Skomorokh below, biographies of living people should rarely be edited by those close to the subject, or, presumably, the subject himself. I stand by all my edits and the fact that I criticized the edits of Getitrightfolks demonstrates that we are not working in tandem. Getitrightfolks deleted most of the article whereas I made slight alterations and modifications, all of which were sourced and none of which had anything to do with politics or ideology. While 5WPR has had some issues with respect to unethical practices, I doubt an online petition tweeted by 30 people is something they're going to be very concerned about. Face it Mr. Sieradski, you wrote your own Wikipedia entry, it was self-promotional and badly sourced, and it ought to be fixed or deleted. Wrongtired18 (talk) 13:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was a big enough deal for the Forward to write about it and for sockpuppets to start smearing me with claims of insignificance on their website as well. The number of signatories, just as the number of attendees to my anti-Middle East violence rally, and just as the amount of money raised in the concerts for cross-borders victims of the 2006 Israel-Lebanon war (both of which you felt necessary to highlight), is not relevant. What -is- relevant, is that the Jewish and secular press think it was significant enough to report because of my profile as a visible and active young leader in the Jewish community. And no, I didn't write it, so stop insisting I did and pushing your clearly defamatory edits. Mobius1ski (talk) 14:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would urge you to look up the word defamatory in the dictionary. In the meantime, do I have to go through each and every one of the 27 edits made by 216.57.16.194 ? That is the IP address of your former place of employment, is it not? Are you denying that you made the edits attributed to that IP address? Another 27 edits were made from the IP address 69.113.117.238. Whoever that was seems to have added family details about you that very few people would know in such detail. Are you denying that the edits made from 216.57.16.194 and from 69.113.117.238 are yours? Are you denying that this article was written mostly by you? Wrongtired18 (talk) 15:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The bigger question is why you have a bone to pick with this profile in particular. I believe it is because you are a sockpuppet for 5WPR, the Jewish Internet Defense Force or another party interested in defaming me in order to minimize the effect of my criticsm. I acknowledge making made minor edits from JTA and if made any edits more significant than that, feel free to revert them. I did not, however, insert the stuff about my family (which is readily available on my blog) and in fact I tried to remove it, because I was creeped out by it, but the changes were reverted. Mobius1ski (talk) 15:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is wrong to not AGF. I don't believe this article contributes much to the Wikipedia project because there is a clear COI, it relies upon original research, some poor sources ("Jewish Socialist?"), notability issues, and it's highly self-referential, and self-promotional..among many other problems. For the record, I'm not a a sockpuppet of Wrongtired18, neither are we working together in any sort of "conspiracy" against you, or this article. --Getitrightfolks (talk) 17:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are over 50 anonymous edits easily attributable to the subject of this article. The subject in question wrote all or substantially all of the article prior to my arrival. The article he wrote is just not objective at all. For instance, what is Matzat? You call it an organization that you are the director of but there's no record of it's existence as a non-profit organization in the IRS database or that of the Rasham Amutot in Israel. The site also seems to be down. Are you not in fact the sole employee or person involved in Matzat? Does that not just make you a freelance Web designer who has serviced a number of non-profit entities? Is that really notable? There is no bigger question Mr. Sieradski. Nothing I have written is defamatory or untrue. That's the only issue at hand here. Is your article notable and is the information accurate and without bias. I can't speak for Getitrightfolks because, frankly, his edits have been, shall we say, intemperate and I do believe he has a clear ideological bias against you. But as far as I'm concerned, I am not affiliated with any entity, company or organization that has anything against you. My edits speak for themselves. They have all been truthful and sourced. You'll notice that Skomorokh's edits go beyond mine in terms of seeking to present a less biased article. Wrongtired18 (talk) 18:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you are not part of a defamatory campaign, why did you appear out of nowhere, shortly after I launched my petition against 5W and begin making edits on this entry? What compelled you to my Wikipedia entry out of millions of entries unless you were focused on me personally? There are countless entries far more problematic than this one. BTW-Matzat was fiscally sponsored by another non-profit and we never had 501c3 status of our own. We also are relaunching as Jew It Yourself later this year which is why the website is no longer online. If I were routinely editing my own entry, I can assure you that would have been reflected. Mobius1ski (talk) 18:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, as an avid reader of Jewish blogs, I have an interest in the Jewish blogosphere and you are one of the few/only JBloggers that I know of with a Wikipedia page. Reading it when I did, I couldn't help but notice the significant disconnect between what was portrayed in Wikipedia and who you actually are online and in real life based on all available sources. Consequently, in true Wikipedia style, I tried to make a few minor edits that would make the entry more realistic. None of this has anything to do with your little twitter campaign that attracted 30 tweets. I have no connection to 5WPR or the JIDF or any of your numerous detractors. As for Matzat, who is this "we" you keep talking about? I have never heard of anyone else being involved in Matzat other than you, Daniel Sieradski. And now you got an ROI grant to relaunch Jew It Yourself (Dorot money ran out 3 years ago right?), so you took down Matzat? Now let me get this straight, Matzat is "an organization which specializes in web development and Internet marketing strategy for Jewish non-profit organizations" and Jew It Yourself is supposed to be some kind of Jewish community, social networking ubber Web site which will also incorporate ShulShopper. What does one have to do with the other? I think you're weaving an interesting but disjointed story here. All indications are that you are merely a freelance Web designer focusing on Jewish non-profits. There's nothing wrong with that, except that you made it seem like Matzat was some kind of organization with staff and a structure headed by a "Director" when in fact it was just you. Once again demonstrating why it's a bad idea for the subject of an article to write or edit his or her own entry. Wrongtired18 (talk) 18:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, I didn't write my own entry, and who are you, sketchball, that you're keeping tabs on my project funding sources? Mobius1ski (talk) 19:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How do you define "write?" You didn't write the original entry perhaps, but there are 54 edits that are undeniably yours. There were 27 edits from 216.57.16.194 traced to the JTA which is where you worked. I can understand your hesitation in admitting these were all yours because they were written on company time, but it strains the bounds of credulity to believe that one of your co-workers wrote those edits given how well crafted and intimate they were and the painstaking attention to detail they represented. The 27 edits coming from 69.113.117.238 were clearly also done by you given the same care and attention to detail they represent. Curiously, these were all done after work hours. 54 major edits means you had a large part in crafting the article about you. I suggest again, that you let this go and allow unbiased editors to edit this page. I'm sure you have much better things to do with your time than to engage in silly Wikipedia battles while at work. I don't think your current employers at Repair the World will be too impressed knowing that this too, as well as all your tweets, were done on company time. Wrongtired18 (talk) 06:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, shouldn't your intimate knowledge of my existence and business dealings counter your claim that I am a non-entity? Mobius1ski (talk) 19:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone thinks you're a "non-entity." This really isn't about "you" per se, it's about the article about you, and whether or not it belongs in Wikipedia. To me, it's pretty clear that this article reads like a resume on Career Builder. It's highly self-promotional and much of it is based upon completely non-sourced information, or broken links, leading to your old website, etc.--Getitrightfolks (talk) 19:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need for name calling. The funding sources that I mentioned are well documented. You loudly trumpeted your ROI grant on your Twitter page and your receipt of the grant is on the ROI Web site. The Forward wrote an article about ShulShopper which mentioned that the Dorot grant was running out. Let it be noted that you haven't countered any of my claims. 54 edits from IP addresses easily traced back to you, being the Director of an organization made up of one person and on and on. You may very well be notable, but your page really read like a hagiography. Prior to my entry it made no mention of your academic career, it made not even the slightest mention, echoed in many of the articles you yourself cited, that you are a contentious and often abrasive individual, and you conveniently omitted the effectiveness of some of your advocacy - you saw fit to mention your Gaza protest but not the cited fact that less than 50 people reportedly participated in it. You should really step back and allow less biased individuals to edit this. You're not helping your cause out by reacting so forcefully. Wrongtired18 (talk) 19:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notice[edit]

This is an encyclopaedia, not some anonymous blog platform tolerant of pseudonymous smear tactics. Let me state flat out that we look very poorly on negative editing of biographies of living people, which should very rarely be edited by those close to the subject, and never by editors with an agenda. What issues there are with questionable sourcing can be worked out here, on the talkpage, by editors without axes to grind. I'm giving due notice now that any further tendentious editing (example) will result in the accounts responsible being blocked from contributing.  Skomorokh  13:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to apologize for some of my edits, but not all. I admitted that I got a bit carried away. I was unaware of how to nominate this article for deletion and to properly cite the obvious COI issues. I have no personal ax to grind with the subject at hand, I just do not believe the subject is notable enough to be in Wikipedia and I believe the COI issues and attempting to use Wikipedia to promote oneself here is obvious. --Getitrightfolks (talk) 16:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After taking your concerns into account, I am going to roll back this entry to my last edit and I am happy to cooperate with any editors willing to objectively beef up the entry. I am still uncertain about whether the subject merits inclusion in Wikipedia, but if he is going to be included his entry should be up to Wikipedia standards and he ought not edit it. Wrongtired18 (talk) 14:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe your last edits are also intended to defame by presenting information in a way which makes the impact of my work appear less significant. Mobius1ski (talk) 14:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is ridiculous. Is there anything in what I wrote that was untrue or unsourced? Why am I even arguing with you? There's a reason the subject of an article is discouraged from making edits and this it - you are incapable of being objective. I'm sorry you never graduated from college. I'm sorry that it was reported that less than 50 people came to your rally. I'm sorry about all the things about you that you don't like but if you merit inclusion in Wikipedia, then there's no point glossing over things you don't like. Please point out exactly what I wrote that was untrue? Conversely, could it not be stated that the edits you made were designed to make the impact of your work seem more significant than it actually was? Wrongtired18 (talk) 15:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After further instances of persistent IP and SPA partisan disruption, I have semi-protected this article for a month.  Skomorokh, barbarian  09:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When did Wikipedia become Career Builder?[edit]

Seriously. This reads like a resume of non-sourced employment info with non-sourced biographical information sprinkled in. I have nominated this page for deletion. I'm not sure I did it right. --Getitrightfolks (talk) 19:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support for this entry's inclusion in Wikipedia[edit]

I write as a somewhat disinterested party. I have met Mr. Sieradski only once, years ago, and I have no affiliation with his projects, clients, or employers. My angle is that I am also a Jewish community organizer (see: Ravenna Kibbutz, Moishe House, Emanuel Congregation), and of the same generation that tends to rely disproportionately on "new media" like blogs and social networking platforms to establish notability of institutions and personalities among our peers -- so I understand well that this can make traditional sourcing difficult for us. In my view, this entry is a bit bloated and calls for tightening up, including the removal of some genuinely questionable information and sources. However, it is also my view, as a long-time member of the Jewish organizational community, that Mr. Sieradski is sufficiently notable in this field to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia, for his role in establishing Jewschool, JDub, new media initiatives at JTA, and various innovative cultural and political events in Israel as well as NYC -- as covered in many "new media" sources not affiliated with Mr. Sieradski, in addition to significant traditional media outlets such as the Forward. And I think the intensity of the flame war here speaks to the inability to make objective contributions, not only (understandably) of the subject himself, but moreover also of those calling for the entry's deletion. The entry should stand, and calmer parties should edit it to improve its sourcing, focus, and objectivity. --75.172.105.117 (talk) 19:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You'll notice that the name calling and paranoid accusations all come from Mr. Sieradski. I think a flame war requires two sides. I didn't know he established JDub! Wow,I guess he really is notable! Wrongtired18 (talk) 20:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Might I also add that it be explained to Mr. Sieradski that he has no proprietary rights over this article, even though he's clearly worked hard on it. Wikipedia is not meant to be a akin to a self-congratulatory blog post. If his notability is established then the article has to contain all relevant information about the subject, both positive and negative. Wrongtired18 (talk) 22:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing issues[edit]

The subject of this article has now taken it upon himself to canvass people to help his case here. As you can see with this Tweet, Mr. Sieradski informs all his 1057 followers on Twitter, the following: "If you want to stop the assault on my Wikipedia page, now flagged for deletion by my detractor, please chime in."

Is this not against Wikipedia's rules? According to Wikipedia policies against inappropriate canvassing, this does seem to be a "provocative attempt to stack an ongoing poll." It also seems to be crossing the "dividing line" as Mr. Sieradski is "contacting a number of people who do not ordinarily edit the disputed article."

I believe the comments above from 75.172.105.117 should be disregarded as they are most likely in response to Mr. Sieradski's Twitter campaign.--Getitrightfolks (talk) 21:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this story is becoming bigger -- I found it out on Failed Messiah, a major blog critical of 5WPR. But for the sake of fairness, clearly anyone who disagrees with Getitrightfolks on anything should be discarded and deemed terminally biased.Mrnhghts (talk) 23:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Failed Messiah pointed out the coincidence in terms of the timing of some of the edits on this site, attributing them to the possible machinations of 5WPR. Sieradski for his part has implicated, via twitter, 5WPR, the JIDF and Adam Hyman in a plot to "defame" him. However, in comments left by one Jewish Whistle Blower on the Failed Messiah Blog, he/she pointed out what seems to be a recurring and long standing pattern on Mr. Sieradski's part of making anonymous edits to his entry despite the fact that he has a perfectly functioning and long standing account on Wikipedia. One reason one might do this would be as a clumsy attempt to hide the fact that one was editing one's own entry, which as we all know, is bad form when dealing with biographies of living persons. There's no plot against Mr. Sieradski. This is just the inevitable end result of what looks like a longstanding pattern of deceptive and/or dishonest activity. Wrongtired18 (talk) 13:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I knew enough to trace Juda Engelmayer's IP address back to his emails, a well reported fact, I knew well enough that posting from work would reveal my IP block as well, which should indicate that I wasn't intending to hide anything. Where was the deception in taking responsibility for the edits I made? Am I more or less deceptive than you and Getitrightfolks, who have created anonymous accounts with the sole intent of maligning another person's character? Mobius1ski (talk) 00:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right. Because you anticipated this level of scrutiny. And it was just a coincidence that you made certain edits while not logged in. Your pattern of deceptive behavior has already been well established. You log in selectively when you know your edits would be otherwise subject to criticism. This is a clumsy and dishonest tactic meant to evade criticism and now that you've been busted you're trying to backtrack and say you didn't really do anything wrong. Well, if they were all acceptable edits, why did you purposely not do them via your Wikipedia account? As far as my "deception" goes, my edits were all legitimate, I challenge you or anyone to find a single edit that was unsourced or untrue and ultimately that's all that matters. I'm not "maligning" your character by creating a more balanced and truthful article. You are in fact a college dropout. Your fundraiser for Lebanon did in fact raise "around" $1,000. Your rally did in fact attract "under 50 people." And if anything, I tried to be kind. Did I mention your arrest and detention for drug possession in Jerusalem? Did I make a big deal about your numerous well publicized "blowouts" with any number of individuals in the Jewish communal world? Given your penchant for high profile verbal fisticuffs, one would have to be a masochist to openly criticize you. I never maligned your character insofar as everything I have said is true and verifiable. Wikipedia is not a repository for self-penned, self-congratulatory essays. if you're going to have an entry, it will reveal everything relevant about you, and not just what you want it to reveal. You can malign my integrity all you like, but I have followed the rules of Wikipedia to the letter and I have tried to be fair and impartial, which is more than anyone can say about you, sir. Sometimes the best defense is not a strong offense. You are making yourself look incredibly foolish. Wrongtired18 (talk) 03:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gee whiz, I wonder why a self-professed impartial and disinterested party would know ever so much about the details of such an allegedly irrelevant person's life. But feel free to keep up the ruse, because I know exactly who you are at this point. Mobius1ski (talk) 12:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no interest in playing silly games with you. You can attempt to introduce Red Herrings, like the existence of a vast right-wing conspiracy, into the conversation all you like but at this point such musings are simply not germane. My edits were all 100% true, documented and verifiable. Everything I've said in this discussion is part of the public record. Between us there is one person who has followed the rules of Wikipedia scrupulously, and one who has knowingly used subterfuge to side-step the rules. Who am I? 5WPR? Adam Hyman? The JIDF? 4 different people? Does it matter? Wikipedia is not meant to be CareerBuilder.com. You do not own this entry. Get over yourself and let those who follow the rules edit this article so that it either meets Wikipedia's standards or is removed for lack of notability. Wrongtired18 (talk) 13:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Serious problems with previous versions of this article[edit]

It read like a resume. I'm unsure why Malik Shabbaz would support a highly biased article which reads like a resume. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.73.65.87 (talk) 08:03, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

184.75.218.67 = Unnamed sock puppet of JIDF/David Appletree who was banned from Wikipedia for similar shenanigans to his last edits on this article. Many of the contribs above are JIDF sock puppets as well. It is well known that JIDF has beef with Sieradski, as he has made numerous defamatory public statements about Sieradski. He is not a neutral source as his edits are also motivated by an intent to defame. 207.219.69.162 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:28, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's no evidence to suggest your allegation is true. It's clear that IP 207.219.69.162 is a Daniel Sieradski sockpuppet though. In fact, it is established that Daniel Sieradski uses quite a few "anonymous IP's" both here on Wikipedia, and elsewhere, in his own efforts to harass and intimidate others. Daniel Sieradski has annoyed many people beyond the JIDF. This seems like paranoia to me, and he seems to enjoy pretending that the JIDF is at all focused on him. Yes, while it appears there have been a few "scuffles" between the JIDF and Sieradski, from what I can tell, the JIDF is focused on anti-semites and terrorists for the most part. I don't understand why these anonymous COI IP's are trying to draw the JIDF into this. 91.221.67.208 (talk) 12:59, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article reads like a resume. need new photo?[edit]

Most of the edits by 84.75.218.67 were good and i think should be kept. So I undid the reversal of them, but I fixed the POV issues, which were making the article biased. Also, I think the photo of Mr. Sieradski should be updated, as it does not seem he looks that way, now. When searching for him on Google, we find: this, this, and this, which appear to be much more recent and more representative of what he looks like now. Can someone please help to get one of these into Wikipedia? 80.82.68.227 (talk) 05:33, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New article[edit]

Perhaps this can be of use? 91.221.67.208 (talk) 12:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you have problems with the factuality, relevancy or newsworthiness of the edits, then state your case. Otherwise, shut up and stop reverting the edits. Also, it is entirely clear that you have a personal vendetta against Sieradski, which means YOU have a conflict of interest. Until you can prove that the editor is Sieradski, all you are doing is engaging in vandalism. 95.211.188.54 (talk) 23:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear and reads like an advertisement/resume[edit]

The article seems to be composed primarily of disjointed factoids with little context into their relevance, while the whole thing paints a rather positive glow on the subject, and reads a bit like a CV or a resume. In particular, the "activism" section primarily deals with isolated instances that don't seem to mesh well with the rest of the article. The "acclaim" section is likewise problematic, as it is littered with quote mined pieces from publications that don't seem altogether too related to the general topic of this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrxBrx (talk • contribs) 03:06, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have trimmed the advertisement-like portions, but I don't see the lack of clarity. This is the best that can be done with a subject like this. I will trim the remaining tag if there's no response here after a while. :] 173.87.169.150 (talk) 23:26, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the tag from the article. As it stands now, it is not confusing to me Verne Equinox (talk) 23:45, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter ban[edit]

For some reason, this source is being misrepresented. The way MShabazz writes it, Sieradski was banned for being harassed, but the source states that he was banned "permanently suspended" for suggesting violence against Baked Alaska. It was after this suggestion that Baked Alaska responded with his "campaign", and worth noting is that Baked Alaska's post still stands, while Sieradski's account is "permanently suspended". I just don't see why MShabazz would want to misrepresent what the source says in this way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darthmoles (talk • contribs) 04:15, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Daniel Sieradski. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:03, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Flagrant autobiography[edit]

Is it not obvious to everyone that 'Malik Shabazz' is Sieradski himself? The day after Sieradski got dinged for editing his own article, Malik Shabazz began adding material praising the subject and has been editing the article on-and-off for the last *ten years*. It's really quite a gratuitous display. Shameful. rebrane (talk) 23:29, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

.Rebrane: if you are correct then the username might constitute impersonation of a fairly well known attorney, and could therefore be considered inappropriate under the username policy. The user's contributions are problematic and the user has been taken to AN/ANI (I didn't look closely), and because this is a real life name attached to these heavily biased contributions, the user might need to be renamed at usernames for admin attention. 173.87.168.111 (talk) 19:06, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IP allegations[edit]

I undid the removal of sourced material from today, but what the IP6 put in the edit summary could be seen as an allegation against another editor:

I don't know whether that's true but it's probably against the rules. 173.87.172.42 (talk) 02:05, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Daniel_Sieradski&oldid=1205293965"