User talk:BrendelSignature/May 2006 to December 2006

Image tagging for Image:1985TC.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:1985TC.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a very good image and I only upoloaded it for temporary use until something better poped-up. So you can go ahead and delete it. Signature ^brendel 20:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rücklichter

Thanks for the heads-up. The relevant section in the consolidated Automotive lighting article was woefully deficient, wasn't it! I have transferred the relevant info from your stub, together with regulatory information, into a newly-expanded section in the main article, and redirected Taillight and Taillamp thereto. I did not copy in your info on combined functions or the red/amber rear turn signal issue, because those are already extensively covered in the main article. Scheinwerfermann 22:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

removal of POV

he has not done anything to remove POV from german cars like S-class and BMW. Samstayton 23:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a problem with any of the articles on German cars, why don't you just go and correct it? Wait, why am I answering a vandal on somebody else's talk page? Egal... Bravada, talk - 23:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was kind of thinking the same thing. (I mean the why doesn't he go to German cars and remove the POV himself, I myself have responded to all sorts of comments on other people's talk pages ;-)) What I can't figure out is why Sam is addressing me in the third person-I guess I'm royalty-oh, well... Signature ^brendel 23:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, could you revert Sam's last revert? I would be running into 3RR, Sam actually already did, but I don't know whether he was aware of that, so I placed a warning message on his talk page. You are still safe, so you can revert it. If he continues to do the revert thing, we are now clear to submit a 3RR complaint, as he is now aware of the rule. Thx, Bravada, talk - 01:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I just wanted to say that perhaps I was overly sensitive concerning the Luxury Cars Task Force. Indeed, if the task force would consist of people intending to cut down on POV, it could do very much valuable work cleaning up and developing articles and setting standards pertaining to this type of cars. The hidden agenda behind those Task Forces is to finally get people to review all the articles we have and concentrate efforts - sometimes, there is something really large to do, like a bunch of articles interconnected, and if everybody's just doing thier stuff, this can never be finished. So, I proposed a scheme that I hoped would catch all articles we have, or at least the majority (funny how nobody complained yet that Saab and Volvo were left out). A Luxury Cars Task Force has one flaw - the borders of this project would be pretty fluid, and also if the divide went that way, it might be hard to find people for, e.g. Small Family Car Task Force...

I am getting tired and rumble without sense - what I mean is go on and propose the TF if you have a good idea for outlining the scope. What we need now is to get ANY Task Force up and running to show how it may work, we'll worry later about overlapping scopes and blank areas.

Now something more important - the Design and Marketing Task Force. This goes quite against my original idea, as you can't actually assign a specific group of articles to it, or rather all articles would fall under it! Moreover, the issues you mentioned are actually one of the basics when editing any article, if I understand you correctly, so more or less we are all in this TF anyway (esp. given that it encompasses ALL our articles). Perhaps you just wanted to propose some more specific standards and conventions, so why not do that outright without a "Task Force"? We need to work on standards and conventions anyway, I am just too tired to do a good write-up on that at the moment?

Bottom line - please rethink this Task Force.

Regards, Bravada, talk - 19:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, now I see the lexical problem... I used the name Task Forces aping the other WikiProject, but actually those are "Interest Groups" and tasks are something quite different - ALL TFs should have adding info on design/marketing and removing POV as their tasks. I think we need to work general guidelines for auto articles (perhaps bei Gelegenheit of developing the Assessment Scheme) that would include all that info. Would you be willing to try to start compiling them? Bravada, talk - 20:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, well du'h. Yes, those should be taks of any TF-sorry about that, I get it now. I think working "bei Gelegenheit" is perhaps the best way-let's see how thinks come along. Start compelling-well I'm still trying to compell people to review some of my articles and put their disucssions in the right place on the US project- a lot of things at one time-so I'll see what I can do. Signature ^brendel 20:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LS Template?

Yo G. I noticed you have a User template for Lincoln Town Car. I'm guessing you probably made it yourself. Well, I happen to be a very enthusiatic Lincoln LS V8 owner, loaded and in "Vivid Red" (sometimes I get to drive a loaner Town Car while my LS is getting serviced). Anyway just wondering if maybe you thought about making similar User templates for the rest of us Lincoln owners, or perhaps you already did? We gotta take a stand for our red-blooded American Luxury cars. Yes I know you are German, but we can overlook that ... --T-dot 23:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I can make such a template-how about you send me a picture of your LS. Signature ^brendel 00:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone deleted it after a couple of days. Bummer. --T-dot 15:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why thank you - I'll polish it up and get to work on that. I will have to make it a really good one though, after all the grief I have been giving to other users, who went around systematically replacing the well composed "fair use" professional photographs provided by automakers, with really crappy, sub-amateurish, poorly lit, badly composed, fuzzy, and horribly exposed pics of some car they saw in a supermarket parking lot with distracting backgrounds, and shadows (or even reflections) of themselves and other nearby objects falling on the car. I'll let you know when I have something, and if it is high enough quality, you can decide if it is worthy of further use on the Wikipedia. I kind of wish we could adopt a policy where other amateur photographers would post a number of their automobile photographs in a sandbox area, and allow the rest of us to critique them and decide which ones are worthy of posting in articles. Some folks just "bull doze" their photos in, without discussion, and they are just horrible examples from any sort of critical photographic quality perspective - but they serve as terrific examples of how to make a really bad photographs, from Photography 101 class. There I go, rambling again. --T-dot 13:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True a sandbox would be a good idea. But consider we still don't really have a "good" photo af an LS-the best one is again in a parking lot and the other is from the side. I think what a lot of users forget is that the background is just about as important as the car. Regards, Signature ^brendel 16:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lexus LS vs. Sam

Gerd, Sam's on the rampage again - I will revert him until I can, but I am afraid sb will have to take over at one point. I hope you will be able to. In case of his persistence, do report him to 3RR - perhaps that will teach him something. Regards, Bravada, talk - 00:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oy, and that on my vacation ;-)-okay I'm here now and I'll check back later-on the fourth I'll file the report. Cheers. Signature ^brendel 00:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the bother, I've seen you can't keep away from the net anyway, so I thought I'll just let you know so that you could have some guilty fun midway between the swimming pool and the restaurant :D Frohe Ferien again :D Bravada, talk - 00:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So true! Signature ^brendel 01:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Went faster than I thought it would be, thanks! I have no idea what Sam was thinking, he was clearly aware what he is in for... Anyway, have a great vacation while I am going to have some good sleep :D Auf Wiederlesen Bravada, talk - 01:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gute Nacht-Ich schaue ja eh immer einmal am Tag nach was hier alles ab geht ;-) Signature ^brendel 01:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Italy

It's getting monotonous. Considering it's the same person again and again. In one archive of Talk:Major power and many archives of Talk:Superpower, where the great/major powers were originally listed: Italy was never even discussed. Now all of a sudden new users with ONE CONTRIBUTION are telling us we are making Wikipedia worse. These users are obviously not new. Nobleeagle (Talk) 08:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you two shoudl really get together sometime in real life. Seriously. JJx2 08:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it that whenever we have these include-Italy debates, the protagonists in the add-Italy group are unable to keep civil? Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So bringing up India means we all have become uncivil? Pointing out you two collude on this page is uncivil? Interesting. JJx2 09:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:Illegal_US

Template:Illegal_US has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Klaser 22:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:Danger

Template:Danger has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. GunnarRene 23:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject United States

Hey man. Check out the changes on Wikipedia:WikiProject United States! You think we need more people? I do. How about a newsletter and some announcements at the Regional Notice boards and Community Bullitin board? Everybody else is doing it. Maybe we could have a membership drive. I added the "Special projects" section to beef things up a bit. Please follow suit. Don't leave me hangin' here, bro. Let's Work together! E Pluribus Unum! Thanks! CQ 18:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm still on vacation and despite my Wiki addiction am able to take a semi-WP break while on vacation. Anyways, I'll return next week in "Full-force" and will dedicate more attention to the US project. A newsletter is an excellent idea! Regards, Signature ^brendel 01:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:DSC04569.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:DSC04569.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 03:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The image is no longer needed, so you can go ahead and delete it. Regards, Signature ^brendel 01:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great power article - be on guard against poor sources

Hello there. We've cut quite a bit of material from the Great power page this weekend. We've also managed to source quite a bit of the history of the term. There's still a lot of work to do, but I think that the page is finally on the way up. (I've found http://www.press.umich.edu/pdf/0472112872-ch2.pdf especially useful - some proper academic work on the subject, for once!).

I'm just giving you a quick heads-up to watch out for attempts to introduce countries/propositions into the article, citing spurious or unreliable sources as justification. At the moment we have claims that Poland, Netherlands, Sweden, and the Ottaman empire should be included (claims which may have valididy, or not) - but the sourcing provided as justification is pretty poor. In such circumstances we ought to have no hesitation in taking the country off the page until it is supported by a proper source, no matter what our view of its power/status. If we are to continue the good work on the article, reliable sourcing ought to be our top priority.

I've been trying to police this over the past day or two, but the more of us that get involved, the better. It makes it much harder for the issue to get clouded in accusations and personal attacks against individuals if we are all acting in unison.

Best wishes, Xdamr^talk 02:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good work on the Super Power article. Sorry that I sounded POV in my wording, I'm only human and sometimes get soo tired about this US/EU super power controversy. I'll watch my wording more carefully. And personally,I believe if you take away all the political mumbo-jumbo, and just leave the economics, military power, population, land area, and control of resources...there is really no reason to say the EU isn't currently a super power. All thats really needed is a Foreign Policy that everyone agrees on (which will hopefully come soon)! Regards! smooth_operator september 7

No problem, we all have some of our POV show inadvertanly at some point or another. Thank you for telling me that you didn't mean to sound POV, I am personally a bit weary after so much deabte of people trying to push their POV, but its good to know that you're not one of them and that you edit in good faith. As for the EU's status I think we see I to eye on that. Happy editing! Regards, Signature ^brendel 03:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:00LTC.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:00LTC.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 00:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may delete this picture as it is no longer needed. Regards, Signature ^brendel 01:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

US talk page

That phrase, as it stands, is complete nonsense. Joelito (talk) 01:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay that statisfies my curiosity, at least to some extend ;-) Signature ^brendel 01:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects to sections

... don't work. You set up a few articles, like Working class majority as #REDIRECT American middle class#Working class majority. Just thought I'd let you know that if you click on the Working class majority link, you'll find it redirects you to the American middle class article, but at the top. Links within articles can direct you to a section, but the Wiki developers have never gotten the redirect to work that way. Just FYI. Fan-1967 00:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you I did not know that. One question though. On my computer I tested the links and they worker. How come? Thanks for the heads up! Signature ^brendel 00:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you're on the redirect page, and click on the link, it works, because that's acting like a link on a page. But if you click on a link to the redirect page from somewhere else, it will only redirect you to the top. Fan-1967 00:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see. Thanks, Signature ^brendel 00:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've seen a few places, the Wiki developers always intended for it to work, but it never has, and it's a low-priority item. Fan-1967 00:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prestige Vehicles Ven diagram

Please update the diagram to reflect Acura as being a luxury marque. Come 2007 they are discontinuing their RSX line and introducing the RDX, making their mean MSRP above $36K.

Hmmm... thanks for the update. I'll check the web-site and make the corresponding change soon. Regards, Signature ^brendel 03:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American Upper Class

i've never started an article before, but American Upper Class does need to be created. could you perhaps help? Colorfulharp233 19:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC) or Harpiegirl6 19:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC), i have two.[reply]

umm, yah. i don't know what to do with the article now. i want to put in how upper class is not simply how much you make, but also your lifestyle. and how you can easliy make tons of money, but not have an upper class lifestyle. Harpiegirl6 02:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Éponyme

I blocked him for a week. He really crossed the line. And I want to commend you for staying cool. What I think users like Éponyme don't realize is that accusing someone of OR or pushing POV is ok. Bullying people by calling them ignorant and the like is not ok. I think you've done a pretty good job of not crossing that line and making it personal. Éponyme needs to learn the same lesson. Thank you for bring him to our attention. --Woohookitty^(meow) 01:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Town Car pic

Just today I took a better pre-facelift 2nd-gen Town Car pic. I'll let you determine if the same or any edits would be required (I didn't see an issue, maybe it varies by screen resolution). New image Unless you'd prefer to have a photo in the article of a taxi version, the first one shouldn't be needed. IFCAR 17:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

west germany

Thats funny.You too(a german) mixes 89 and 91.lol--Pixel ;-) 22:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, becuase the wall fell in '89 but the reunification didn't happen until '91. I know even I, a German gets those two confused. ;-) Signature ^brendel 22:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:20 2007-LS-460.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:20 2007-LS-460.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. When you use a generic fair use tag such as {{fair use}} or {{fair use in|article name}}, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. bainer (talk) 16:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This image is actually no longer needed so you can go ahead and delete it. Regards, Signature ^brendel 18:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much!

WikiThanks

Wow! Thank you for the RAoK barnstar! I would have never thought I even remotely deserve one, and now it's the second time you do that :D Anyway, thank you very much for all the nice words. I guess both my "professionalizm" and and dedication have suffered a decline of late, but after this unexpected act of kindness on your part I feel the more motivated to make up for that. So, I guess I ought to be off to some WikiAction now! Bravada, talk - 21:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Well, perhaps not immediately - it's been a busy day ([http://www.euronews.net/create_html.php?page=detail_info&article=383941&lng=1#}) in Warsaw and I don't know how much longer will I hold on in front of the screen... :D

Rename

As requested, I have renamed you as User:BrendelSignature. You should now move your userpages to the new name. Warofdreams talk 03:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:DSC04584.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:DSC04584.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 18:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I will reload this picture to the commons and post it in a gallery there. I do not, however, have any use for it right now here on WP, so you can go ahead and delete it. Regards, Signature ^brendel 05:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:DSC03209.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:DSC03209.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 23:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I will reload this picture to the commons and post it in a gallery there. I do not, however, have any use for it right now here on WP, so you can go ahead and delete it. Regards, Signature ^brendel 05:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:DSC03292.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:DSC03292.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 23:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I will reload this picture to the commons and post it in a gallery there. I do not, however, have any use for it right now here on WP, so you can go ahead and delete it. Regards, Signature ^brendel 05:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:DSC07308.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:DSC07308.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Image:DSC07173.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:DSC07173.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Reply

Gerd, it's very nice of you to say so, and I do appreciate that, even if I cannot agree with most of what you said :D To make it clear - it is not a "set-back with one particular out of hand WP policy", it is mounting stress and dissatisfaction stemming from the progressive realization that WP is not what I perhaps expected or hoped it to be. My activities here as an editor have caused me nothing but stress and negative feelings for the past weeks, and it is constantly getting worse. I don't want to suffer any more disappointments and "setbacks", and I don't think pushing against fundamental WP policies is of any use. I do hope, however, that your experience with Wikipedia will continue to be fundamentally different. Regards, Bravada, talk - 13:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm sorry to hear that. You're right Wikipedia is not supposed to be stressful experience. Truly, Best Regards, 17:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

US Pop

Ya I noticed I messed up and reverted the change. My bad Koolgiy 22:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Signature ^brendel 22:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use images

Image:Ford-crown-victoria2.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Ford-crown-victoria2.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a free image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The image is no longer needed so you can go ahead and delete it. Regards, Signature ^brendel 18:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:DSC073082-graphic.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:DSC073082-graphic.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you.

Again, this picture has served its purpose and may now be deleted. Regards, Signature ^brendel 22:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Under review

You review me here. Regards, Signature ^brendelNow under review! 05:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:97 lincoln town car-1.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:97 lincoln town car-1.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 00:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC) - ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 00:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This fair use image has been replaced by a free image, so it can be deleted. Regards, Signature ^brendelNow under review! 00:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice

If we could delete not only the Lexus but all other imports as well as their owners. The U.S. would be alot lighter without all thos God-Damned traitors running around Kaltenborn 22:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superior (proposed state)

Please see Vanderbilt University source and consider changing your vote. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superior (proposed state) MPS 18:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this proves the movement does exsist, but not that it is serious. I changed my vote to Merge-see my commentary in the AfD page. Best Regards, Signature ^brendelNow under review! 21:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Country or territory

Hi BrendelSignature,

(fixed syntax- DO NOT DELETE NOMINAL GDP FIGURE SPACES w/o discussion)

Looking at the history, I guess it must've been me who deleted these parameters – if so, it was entirely unintentional and I apologiz/se for my error (probably due to careless copy/pasting). I agree that nominal GDP figures are a worthy addition, so I hope all now restored. Best wishes, David Kernow (talk) 15:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for letting me know what happened. I'm glad to see that you agree over mentioning nominal GDP in addition to PPP figures. I'm sorry if the edit summary sounded a bit harsh; with the capital letters and what not...

When I realized what had happened, I sympathized with how it must've seemed! Thanks for your reply, David (talk) 03:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Middle Class

Hello Brendel,

This is in reply to the small section in the upper middle class article. I did make an error, the small section that I added should have been in the section for "American Middle Class". You stated "Are you talking about the upper middle class, which includes many members of the inteligista, professors, economists, scientists, etc...? The upper middle class whose members commonly hold at least a Masters degree are usually not described as "the new peasantry" but rather as a "new petite bourgeoisie." While I am curious as to what you meant with that statement I also need to inform you that it might compromise the WP:NPOV policy (You need to provide sources for your statements-especially if they're of such subjective nature). Regards, SignaturebrendelNow under review! 06:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)"

Below I have listed some references from books to newspaper articles, very creditable web sites from Universities, etc. The small section I added is not my personal views, the WP:NPOV policy would cover bias views. However your articles are very good, though I cannot understand why you painted a picture of the American middle class as if it above all approach. Based upon news paper articles and studies and a vast amount of people in middle class America are not well rounded people, cultured, or exposed to a higher level. I have listed several references for you, however I don't think it is fair to be so one sided when talking about the middle class. Income level or that fact that they have a Masters, does this mean middle class? Possible, however in no way can they be the new bourgeoisie class, nor could they even be considered the former merchant middle class of the Renaissance. However even if we do not take the three estates into consideration. One can come to this conclusion that being in the middle class does not make one the new aristocracy, nor does it make them of a higher standard, or cast. There are those who are of noble blood and those who are not. There are those who are numismatists, antiquarians, or philatelists, and then there are those who are not. However it is up to you, it is your opinion. Though it would not be fair or correct to the American Middle Class as vastly learned, or well rounded.

Thank you, I hope I posted this in the correct place.

--Margrave1206 01:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Books:

The Bourgeoisie in 18th Century France by Elinor G. Barber Review author[s]: W. Henry Cooke

H. Pirenne, Medieval Cities (1952) and Economic and Social History of Medieval Europe (1956);

D. Johnson, ed., Class and Social Development (1982);

Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt, former Senior Policy Advisor in the US Department of Education"Publication of the deliberate dumbing down of america"

Bad Manners in America Amy Vanderbilt Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 378, The Changing American People: Are We Deteriorating or Improving? (Jul., 1968), pp. 90-98

Middle class barely treads water By Christine Dugas, USA TODAY www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/general/2003-09-14-middle-cover_x.htm

Assault on American Middle Class http://www.stoptheftaa.org/ftaa/middleclass.html

What does the Renaissance have to do with Business? Stetson University http://www.stetson.edu/business/international/studyabroad/what.php

The New Middle Class Annenberg/CPB Learner.org www.learner.org/exhibits/renaissance/middleages_sub.html

Social Classes http://www.lepg.org/classes.htm

From Webster Pronunciation: "bu(r)zh-"wä-'zE Function: noun Etymology: French, from bourgeois 1 : MIDDLE CLASS; also plural in construction : members of the middle class 2 : a social order dominated by bourgeois

Webster Pronunciation: 'pe-z&nt Function: noun Etymology: Middle English paissaunt, from Anglo-French paisant, pesaunt, from pais, paiis country, from Late Latin pagensis inhabitant of a district, from Latin pagus district; akin to Latin pangere to fix -- more at PACT 1 : a member of a European class of persons tilling the soil as small landowners or as laborers; also : a member of a similar class elsewhere 2 : a usually uneducated person of low social status

Understanding the New SAT www.insidehighered.com/views/2005/05/25/marthers

Bad Manners in America By Ray Whatley http://www.citizen-times.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=200660614036

BuisnessWeek http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_47/b3960108.htm

The Three Estaes http://cla.calpoly.edu/~dschwart/engl430/estates.html

Lincoln Town Car

There hasn't been a definitive announcement on the Town Car's fate, has there? Last I heard production was being moved to St. Thomas, but I've seen nothing regarding how long the car will be with us. Do you have any info/speculation? Thanks. --Sable232 06:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

White people

Read the article and you will discover that there are many definitions for "white people" used in different parts of the world. None of them take precedence over the others as Wikipedia has a global scope. There is NO WAY you can argue that the information you claim describes white people describes the Bai. The information in the template is flat out wrong and/or ethnocentric and, in any event, is unsourced. I will not violate the 3RR, but I will continue to remove this content.-Psychohistorian 20:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have now violated the 3RR rule. I expect you to revert quickly.-Psychohistorian 20:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for an RfC, I welcome it. Unverified, wrong, misleading information is -not- helpful to any reader.-Psychohistorian 20:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You need to reread the 3RR rule. Changing the template does -not- 'reset' 3RR. Again, I expect you to revert your changes quickly.

The information is backed by an authorative source and very helpful. Regards, Signature ^brendelNow under review! 21:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xdamr

This user fights with truth. It is possible to infer with his relating superpower editions this user. Xdam leads with several writing truth persons editorial war. USA is really superpower but China, Russia, India, Brasil and European Union is emerging superpowers! LUCPOL 00:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user fights with truth. - Never a truer word spoken; with Truth my weapon, and Justice my shield I will conquer all POV/OR in Wikipedia, ha ha.

I've a good mind to stick this up on my user page; I'll start an 'Accusations' section :)

Xdamr^talk 02:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm... now there's an idea. I have had a lot of crazy accusations made against me as well; perhaps we should start a new user page trend ;-) Signature ^brendelNow under review! 02:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:LTC Hood.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:LTC Hood.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you. —Nv8200p talk 05:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:LTCDriverSeat.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:LTCDriverSeat.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you. —Nv8200p talk 05:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Veritas comments.

Do not get offended. Ich bin auch deutscher Herkunft. Aber Ich meine damit die Nazis-Germanisten, nicht die Deutschen. Veritas et Severitas 18:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

bernerjc comments

Hello brendel:

Not familiar on how to work the comments feature but wanted to respond to your note.

Your crime statistics appear incorrect or out of date to me (the data does not agree either with FBI UCR stats that I downloaded yesterday nor does it agree with other parts of wikipedia. Your conclusions on cities with highest crime rates thus appear to be incorrect.

see United States cities by crime rate for corrected data that someone else enetered. Note all totals rates and populations are different than yours.

Take Philadelphia, Pennsylvania for example. Note that the original FBI source does not agree with your data but does agree with United States cities by crime rate. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_08_pa.html

I have attempted to update your data and so far have finished 4 of the ten cities (Dallas, San Antonio, Philadelphia, Houston).

I am happy to finish by correcting the other 6 cities if you like. I note that we could consider including the Las Vegas metro area in the top ten and excluding #11 San Jose as is done in United States cities by crime rate. However san jose is in fact the 10th largest city although only the 11th largest in the table in United States cities by crime rate if you count las vegas. I'd be happy either way.

We need to ensure wikipedia data matches its sources. New York does have the lowest property crime + violent crime rate 2,675 per 100,000 (162,509 + 54,623) / 8,115,690. Philadelphia has the highest violent crime rate 1,467 per 100,000 (21,609 violent crimes divided by 1,472,915)

-bernerjc

Flops

Yeah, I saw that somebody had the manners to slap deletion tags all over it. It just baffles me why there is a list of every type of flop on Wikipedia, yet this one keeps geting deleted. I even went through it and removed all of teh POV Wiarthurhu injected into it adn even rewrote entire sections to make it more neutral. I am not even going to defend it, it is worthless. Karrmann 21:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Automobiles Assesment Department

How do you tag an article with importance? I'm not sure. Do you just add the template to the page (like by adding {{Top-Class}} to the top of the page) or is it part of the wikiproject template (like with the quality scale)? James086^{Talk | Contribs} 05:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:American mainstream culture copy.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:American mainstream culture copy.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. — Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 13:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:286px-Map of below national USA 2 svg.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:286px-Map of below national USA 2 svg.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. — MECU≈talk 03:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:286px-Map of above national USA svg.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:286px-Map of above national USA svg.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. — MECU≈talk 03:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:286px-Map of top 15 USA svg.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:286px-Map of top 15 USA svg.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. — MECU≈talk 03:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:286px-Map of below national USA svg.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:286px-Map of below national USA svg.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. — MECU≈talk 03:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:286px-Map of top 15 above national USA svg.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:286px-Map of top 15 above national USA svg.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. — MECU≈talk 03:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:286px-Map of USA bottom 15 svg.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:286px-Map of USA bottom 15 svg.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. — MECU≈talk 03:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:Race Homicide Rate Historical.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Race Homicide Rate Historical.png. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 19:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MECU≈talk 19:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added the source- it's a US gov web-site and graph was compline by the gov; thus it was released into the free domain. Regards, Signature ^brendel 19:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war at United States

Please refrain from repeatedly undoing other people's edits , as you are doing in United States. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, please discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Gwernol 01:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I wasn't reverting, the sentence has changed multiple times and if you check the history you'll see that this particular paragraph has evolved and we have actually come close to finding the best way of saying things. Signature ^brendel 01:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adolescent sexuality article=GA class?

HAHAHAHA!... sorry but with all of the disputes, it'll probly be given a 0 or so.

Anyways, merging culture into adolescent sexuality?

BAD IDEA! Check out talk:adolescent sexuality all that article needs right now is just a gablillion dollops of unrelated material.

It's a GLOBAL articxle on the topic of adolescent sexuality. Mainly mean't to address WHAT Adolescent sexuality is, STd's a bit, possible orientations including fetish's and the like, along with some info on variations from country to country.

It's FILLED with POV, for a world article. United states culture elements would only (In my opinion) mess it up more.

Branch off the culture part if you'd like. But please!, take a look at my suggestion of branching off all POV'S on the subject into another article.

Boldness is good and all, but when it screws up an article so bad as to have tons of templates, full protection, and a lengthy debate. POV's should be considered for seperation into another article.

The main article is for info on WHAT it is. Not peoples opinions, adolescent sexuality in itself isn't exactly a 'debate' over if it's good or not. It's WHAT IT IS !-)

See? Just take a peek at the discussion, review it, and perhsaps make a post or two. boldness isn't so good if it dramatically slows down an articles progress. (Just my twnety cents) Nateland 01:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it's a GA. I merely said the article boasts a good discussion of adolescent sexuality in the US. Therefore include part of this article in the Culture of the United States article presents itself as a good idea. Signature ^brendel 05:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Average Joe

Hi, I apologize if I accidentally caused an edit conflict when I edited Average Joe. I'm afraid I didn't notice the warning until it was too late. Regards. --דניאל - Danielrocks123 ^contribs 23:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you didn't. You're timing was just right! Thank you for being so considerate. Signature ^brendel 23:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear it. --דניאל - Danielrocks123 ^contribs 03:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mitsubishi i

I've been slowly working on this page over time, and it's reached the point where I think it meets the criteria of a Good Article, although with two copyrighted fair use images and only 13k of content, it's well short of being FA. The biggest trouble with expanding the article is that the car was only released 12 months ago, so I'm still waiting on a lot of info to become available (e.g. production/sales figures).

I didn't want to throw it open to the whole motley AutoProject community, some of whom may be compelled to "improve" the article by replacing metric with imperial measurements, adding badly laid out galleries of the rear of the car, reams of technical information in tabular or bulleted format, and expounding at length on the North American market perspective. Instead, I thought I'd just test the water by canvassing the opinions of some random auto editors who don't seem obsessed with making WP a Buyers' Guide.

Anyway, you think it's worth taking Mitsubishi i through the WP:GA nomination process?

This question has been copy/pasted to User talk:Kierant, User talk:Interiot, User talk:SteveBaker and User talk:BrendelSignature. --DeLarge 15:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images

I've noticed you've done the dropout effect a number of images now. I'd just like to add some constructive criticism, in that some are being cropped in too close (no distracting background to worry about, so not an issue) and that probably a white background would be more mature for an encyclopedia. Your thoughts? IFCAR 22:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you do it for the Lincoln Mark LT? - Bull-Doser 23:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I'll try do to the LT w/ a white background. Signature ^brendel 23:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do it for the Lincoln MKX and most every other Lincoln. -- Bull-Doser 16:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]