Talk:SESAC

Location of Article
I think the article should be under SESAC and not Society of European Authors & Composers as it no longer means that It's only there for historical explanation. Many acronyms have lost their meanings and we don't call them by that and I don't think SESAC should be an exception. --Shimonnyman 09:24, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep editing!
I recently edited this page and got this in my email inbox {edits and comments in curly braces like these}:

Subject: SESAC Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 15:26:54 -0500 Message-ID:  Thread-Topic: SESAC Thread-Index: AcfIsNC+w08C9TV2RdCmYo0dA+Tekg== From: "{***}" <{***}@SESAC.com> To: <{my email address from }>

Hi Toby!

Don't know who you are but would appreciate it if you would quit editing the SESAC / Wikipedia profile. Your information is incorrect and editing that page is not really the responsibility of anyone outside of a SESAC employee.

Thanks!

If you do not wish to receive future commercial e-mail messages from SESAC, you may send an e-mail message from this address to optout@sesac.com

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: {bogus, and cut}

I don't know But in any case, I know that it's complete garbage.
 * if this is a rogue SESAC employee,
 * if SESAC is really trying to intimidate people,
 * if the people at SESAC just don't understand how Wikipedia works, or
 * if this is email is a fake from somebody trying to make SESAC (or this individual) look bad.

Note to other editors: If you get a message like this, you should feel absolutely free to ignore it!

—Toby Bartels 21:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Update: I've had a short email conversation with this person, with my email sent to the return address, so it seems to be real. Thus, I removed the last possibility and cut the identifying/tracing information from the email as posted here. —Toby Bartels 00:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Five years later ... Shawneebelle is back and sent me another email, which was handy, because it alerted me to the trouble. I blocked the account on the grounds of the 3-revert rule. I would be very happy for an administrator more experienced in such matters to review this block. —Toby Bartels (talk) 17:55, 15 March 2012 (UTC)