Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk | contribs) at 17:35, 20 July 2009 (Notification of arbcom discussion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• I no longer have sufficient time to contribute fully to the Misplaced Pages project, with my other works and my profession taking up more of my time. I will continue to edit, but will only be referencing a handful of articles. seicer | talk | contribs 01:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Happy Easter!

On behalf of the Kindness campaign, I just wanted to wish my fellow Wikipedians a Happy Easter! Sincerely, --A Nobody 07:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you :) seicer | talk | contribs 01:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Kim Schmitz

Since you have already contributed to the Discussion page for Kim Schmitz profile talk:Kim_Schmitz, I would like to request your comment on the recent changes that incorporate open collaboration with interested editors. It would be very helpful to receive input from you on the next step. My current intention is to upload the revised content to the main 'Article' page within two days if no further comment is received in that time.--Tturner2009 (talk) 11:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

FYI

FYI. rootology (C)(T) 04:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

He is back again

Hi, Seicer. I hope all is well with you. I know that you retired but I was hoping you would comment here if you had the time. I'm pretty sure if you look at User:Felix 12 22 you will have no doubt it is in fact USEDfan. Every thing from the way he edits, the edits themselves, how he behaves when called a sock, to the username is all the same. Also the fact that The Used related pages is all he edits. User:Raul654 ran a checkuser on USEDfan back in January and uncovered several sleeper socks, and performed some blocks to try and stop him. I asked for Raul to look into this, although I don't know if he will or not. I was hoping he was quacking loud enough to be dealt with the old-fashioned way. Have a good day. Landon1980 (talk) 12:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to let you know this has already been taken care of. FisherQueen blocked indefinitely as a sock of USEDfan. Sorry to have bothered you with it, I know you are busy with the sites you manage, photography, and whatnot. I was just so used to you dealing with it I suppose I came to you out of habit, as I trust your judgment. Anyways, have a good day. Landon1980 (talk) 04:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, sorry bout' the lack of response. I'm just not on here much anymore, and I gave up my admin bits in April. Good call and good work on the USEDfan sock :) seicer | talk | contribs 01:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

ThankSpam

My RfA Thank you for participating in my "RecFA", which passed with a final tally of 153/39/22. There were issues raised regarding my adminship that I intend to cogitate upon, but I am grateful for the very many supportive comments I received and for the efforts of certain editors (Ceoil, Noroton and Lar especially) in responding to some issues. I wish to note how humbled I was when I read Buster7's support comment, although a fair majority gave me great pleasure. I would also note those whose opposes or neutral were based in process concerns and who otherwise commented kindly in regard to my record. I recognise that the process itself was unusual, and the format was generally considered questionable - and I accept that I was mistaken in my perception of how it would be received - but I am particularly grateful for those whose opposes and neutrals were based in perceptions of how I was not performing to the standards expected of an administrator. As much as the support I received, those comments are hopefully going to allow me to be a better contributor to the project. Thank you. Very much. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC) ~~~~~

NowCommons: File:DSCN2388.jpg

File:DSCN2388.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:US 60 SPUI interchange.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Misplaced Pages, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Misplaced Pages, in this case: ]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 19:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

IP

sockabuse continuing. I can't deal with it anymore. Please help. --Legolas 11:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Vega article

The article is complete, factual, neutral, and has 79 references...not from fan sites and all the referenced material is in my possesion. Chevrolet Engineering reports, Chevrolet literature, Auto press including Collectable Automobile, etc. I was informed it is close to feature quality. Your deletion of the DeLorean section remains deleted and the Showroom stock section has been revised and re-inserted, but if you completely rearrange the article again, I will only put it back so don't waste your time. Another thing-instead of rearranging to your personal taste, re-write some of the poorly written auto articles on this site. I've been busy doing that. Don't re-write? then rearrange something that really needs help. Vegavairbob (talk) 04:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

We all need to step back and try to look at this objectively. Seicer, if you could post specific concerns on the Vega talk page, I would be happy to go over them with you as well as Vegavairbob. Keep in mind that he has put a considerable amount of time into improving this article and is understandably upset over major changes, on the other hand you may well have legitimate issues that should be addressed. If we could all discuss this calmly, I am sure that we could reach positive results. --Leivick (talk) 04:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Snipping articles and using them as paragraphs-long "quotations" is not only abusing fair use, but is a copyright infringement that would never pass good article submissions. Your refactoring of those sections that I blanked for copyright infringement only aided slightly; it's still a quote farm with little original text to go by. The hierarchy of sections is a complete mess and has no real organization, and the subsections are merely bolded text instead of using approperiate headers (e.g. ===Section===). It also contains original research that's not properly cited (I can tag bomb that if you'd like), contains peacock terms (which I'll tag later today) and reads like a fan boy's Vega web-site... which is not surprising coming from an account that contains "Vega" in the username. seicer | talk | contribs 11:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I am an expert on the vehicle in addition to being a fan so...There is nothing missing in this article, so an expert, like me, would find nothing missing..get it? I can write a good neutral article on it whether you think it is or not, and even if my user name is similar. Do you have any username suggestions for me? The information is presented much like an engineering report. Have you seen one? They're actually similar to encyclopedia articles not web site bashing articles..neutral info..that's why I wrote it from sources like that. For accurate, neutral, information which is lacking, and its not a fan site article. It is factual article and it will stay that way. (Two fan sites are listed in External links) I noticed that section was left alone..a miracle. The DeLorean section is deleted which was not original material and is all quoted. All other information is referenced. Your reorganization of the sections was poor. The sections will stay in the order that they're in. The 1978-1979 section belongs after the production section since the cars in that section are not in the production figures and are Chevy Monzas. The engine section belongs seperate from Cosworth Vega since the special edition has a different engine and belongs seperate from the engine section. Oh, and that was smart putting the images of the vehicle close to the end with the production figures and notes. The 1970-1977 section contains the images of the cars and belongs at the beginning. The production section at the end also contains the running changes in notes column as a more detailed list of minor changes not mentioned in the main 1970-1977 section. So you put both sections together at the end? The aluminum block section warrents a seperate section and it was written that way..to be seperate. There are no sections within sections which is not needed, and only clutters the article. That's good for articles with less images or less text to fill spaces. This article has 36 images (pardon..35 now) and more text than most, even after you're deletions, so it doesn't need the extra headings. It is neater without your bold, big lettered section within section headings. Next time post a note in the talk page before you take it upon yourself to reorganize my work which was THREE MONTHS. Try editing or re-organizing an article that needs real help. I ADD to these articles which is hard work and time consuming. There is plenty of work needed on other auto articles here like adding decent images and well written text. I spend a lot of my free time each day doing that, and I'd rather be doing that instead of going back and forth with you. This article has been reviewed and determined to be of neutral status and I won't spend any more time debating the point. Vegavairbob (talk) 13:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Christ, please compile your statement in one swoop. It was like I was receiving the orange bar in infinity for the duration I was browsing earlier. That said, if you are going to whine to an administrator instead of actually taking the comments constructively, then I have nothing more to say outside of good luck in your GA review process because I am 100% certain it will fail with the standards that you have adopted (as someone who reviews GA articles, I can attest to that). seicer | talk | contribs 15:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Why is it so important that it have your section re-arrangement and chosen heading design edits to have a higher status? These changes you made other than the deletion of the two non-free text sections do nothing I can see towards getting it any higher status. Vegavairbob (talk) 15:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

See WP:LAYOUT. I also suggest that instead of message bombing my talk page every few seconds, or complaining to administrators, you should be taking up the points in the Chevrolet Vega talk page, where I have outlined what needs to be done to improve the article. I review GA's and I have submitted many GA's myself, and I am willing to work with you to correct the deficiencies, but you need to be willing to work with me as well. seicer | talk | contribs 15:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello, How are you? I converted the tense to past tense as you suggested. Please look at this discussion.http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles/Archive_10#A_tense_situation How's the article look? New headings, lead paragraph. I did everything on your list in talk, but can you help with the spelling. I won't switch the article to present tense again until I hear from you, but it looks like present tense might be the way its going.Vegavairbob (talk) 17:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Paid editing discussion on Jimmy's talk page

Hello, you may wish to weigh in here. rootology (C)(T) 16:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Happy Seicer's Day!

User:Seicer has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Seicer's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Seicer! Peace, Rlevse ~ A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

your comments on that admin

I fully support your suggestion of someone going through Request for Admin and if they refuse going to Arb Com. I didn't know about Arb Com until a few days ago but is very appropriate in this case. you may also notice in this that to cover up a bad close, he asked the closing admin to restore the article as a disambig page then other editors went back and returned the original article to its original state which made me do a 2nd ] which wasted a lot of good editor's time. LibStar (talk) 14:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

veritee

thks for the edit and let me know if you are happy with this ( personally i believe that this revised version is much inferior) but i am not the only one here so i will not change your edits. do you agree to remove the delete notice and close the subject from now on , thsk and have fun.!!!--Netquantum (talk) 17:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I am pleased that the obvious conflicts-of-interest have been removed from the article, along with the adverts, but I cannot remove the deletion notice. That has to be closed by an administrator (which I am no longer a part of). seicer | talk | contribs 17:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Dear me, why on earth did you resign? You were always a very level headed admin. KillerChihuahua 01:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Tired, time commitments were needed elsewhere at my four blogs and web-sites, plus my real day time job! :) seicer | talk | contribs 01:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Um, nap at work? Seriously, I respect your desire to go part time here; but we have lost a good admin. I hope someday you'll have the time again. KillerChihuahua 01:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed community ban of NYScholar

Hello. You have previously commented on issues related to User:NYScholar. I have just proposed that NYScholar be community banned here. I am contacting you partly because your participation in the discussion would be welcome, but also because I have referred to your past comments, and want to give you the chance to ensure that I am not misconstruing them or using them out of context. Best, Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 07:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Probable sockpuppet

Halfacanyon has a highly suspect pattern of behavior for a new editor, i.e. a new editor who immediately wades edit wars and AFD's and taking aggressively anti-Israel positions.Historicist (talk) 18:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I would hope not. These sorts of disputes are every typical in the I/P arena and as you can see from my block log I've had my fair share of fights. :D I responded to the ANI Seicer. If there is anything else I need to do let me know! Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

re: Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Viriditas‎

I'm a whole lot baffled by your having this closed this based on it being an attack page on someone?? There is nothing at all in any way in what I wrote on that page that was a bad faith personal attack upon Viriditas. It was a chronicle of the extremely stressful experience I had with this editor and what I said was most certainly a good faith representation of what I saw and experienced. I'd like to know why you had this deleted without it being given an opportunity to be heard. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

You failed to communicate to Viriditas and failed (as a collective whole) to use dispute resolution in an effort to solve the issues at hand. Leaving it up incomplete, without even an attempt to take the user-conduct RFC seriously, leaves only one to assume it has a more poorer prospect. At such, the first few lines on the RFC -- instructions -- gives another rationale as to its deletion.

As an uninvolved outside editor and former administrator, the charges of plagiarism is very much serious that deserves a second look at (which I will tomorrow), and that any blatant plagiarisms will be deleted. If the content is reinserted, I'll have the page protected and/or the offending users blocked, because it inserts legality issues if it continues on. See also WP:ANI#RFC used to harass. seicer | talk | contribs 01:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The statement that "You failed to communicate to Viriditas and failed (as a collective whole)" seems inaccurate where, not only was every attempt to corral the Wikihounding and attack behavior made on article/noticeboard pages, but -- dreading further Wikihounding -- I also placed the following "Sincere Request" on this user's Talk page, which was ignored, and then another renewed my request.Mosedschurte (talk) 02:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The charge of plagiarism didn't have anything to do with the article in question (Jonestown) on which a large part of the behavioral issues resulting in the WP:RFCU was based. Clouding the waters with unfounded accusations was part of the dispute, but not in regard to the article in question itself. That issues from other places were dragged into it and made part of the dispute is an editor behavior issue. I addressed my concerns about that repeatedly, questioning that this editor was sufficiently neutral based on history with the other editors. My understanding from this diff is that the reviewer did not agree with the claim. The issues brought up by Viriditas were primarily regarding WP:NPOV and were also reviewed and not supported . Because the editor chose to reply to the RFCU with a report at WP:AN/I rather than respond to the RFCU doesn't negate my concerns with how I was treated by Viriditas and in fact, my history of editing on Misplaced Pages has never involved plagiarism, source cherry picking, or other similar issues. NPOV was never an issue until this. That I was drawn into this by how the dispute progressed was something I actively tried to avoid and said so clearly on the talk page. It doesn't negate my treatment and that is at issue. This issue for RFCU is not about the content, it is about how Viriditas's behavior progressively deteriorated. That there is a poor history between Viriditas on the one part and Mosedchurte and Yachtsman1 is the foundation for what happened on Talk:Jonestown and something I actively tried to discourage from the moment it began. Of course, Viriditas is going to see it as a personal attack, it's about his/her behavior. If the RFCU had content issues as to how it was written is something someone did not bother to address at any time and no opportunity or notification to fix it. I requested, more than one time, to ask for dispute resolution or a third party neutral mediator/reviewer be brought in on Talk:Jonestown. Viriditas was not amenable to that, instead filing the WP:NPOV noticeboard report and sticking a peer review request on the page. If I didn't post those diffs in the right section of the RFCU, that is something that can be easily remedied since they are on the RFCU page. And finally, if I recall correctly, the original RFCU has content that I posted that confirmed Viriditas did know about the filing. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Lookit…

Hi, Seicer. Take a look here and here. —Scheinwerfermann ·_C14:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

…and especially here. —Scheinwerfermann ·_C05:13, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Happy Bastille Day!

Dear fellow Wikipedian, on behalf of the Kindness campaign, I just want to wish you a Happy Bastille Day, whether you are French, Republican or not!  :) Happy Editing! Sincerely, --A Nobody 23:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

CSD tag

Hey Seicer. Could you please give me a link to the previous deletion discussion for Football Manager 2010? Thanks very much. — Satori Son 18:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you point me to the deletion discussion? Enigma 01:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, nevermind, someone asked above. Enigma 01:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, that was premature on my part to do so. I'm curious as to how the content arrived in its current state from a new user, though. seicer | talk | contribs 03:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks like an anon removed the PROD tag without comment. I wish there was a way to avoid clogging up AfD with stuff like this. — Satori Son 20:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Aryavarta.jpg

The modification clause was removed based on advice from other members. However, this is not original research. In fact this is based on the latest genetics research of SE Asian population and human migrations, as well as latest research on the Indus Script. All these topics are well discussed and settled in Misplaced Pages itself. Please do not delete this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RussellSpence (talk • contribs) 16:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit question

Seicer -- can we discuss your rescission of my edit? You removed it from "Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories" with the comment that "Washington Independent -- a collection of independent blog articles, is not a RS," but other Washington Independent articles by the same author are cited several times in the article. --TheMaestro (talk) 19:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Please note that this is being discussed at Talk:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories#The Washington Independent article. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Notification of arbcom discussion

Your actions have been discussed here as relevant to an ongoing arbitration case. You may wish to comment. I have linked a prior version of the page because the person who added this material reverted it and then incorporated the material by reference to the reversion, so as to make it impossible for you simply to search for your name. (Hope that's not too confusing.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)