User talk:Seicer: Difference between revisions

• I no longer have sufficient time to contribute fully to the Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply] ~~~~~

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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:US 60 SPUI interchange.jpg]]. 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)[reply]

sockabuse continuing. I can't deal with it anymore. Please help. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 11:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hello, How are you? I converted the tense to past tense as you suggested. Please look at this discussion.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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 [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estonia–Luxembourg relations (2nd nomination)}|AfD]] which wasted a lot of good editor's time. LibStar (talk) 14:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

User_talk:KillerChihuahua#Formal_attempt_to_negotiate

Making such incivil and unhelpful comments as you did here is unacceptable please do not repeat such behaviour. --neon white talk 13:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]