User talk:BrendelSignature/January 2007 to May 2007

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Image:Race Income.png

What year are the data used in this image from?futurebird 06:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The data for the Image:Race_Income.png taken from here (personal income stats) and here (household income). Regards, Signaturebrendel 06:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm having trouble adding that information to the caption of the image. I think it is important to show a date with this kind of information. The image is in a template and when I added the caption it's messed up the formatting. Can you help out? it's here Template:Race and income in US --futurebird 06:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, quite frankly I don't know why the picture is in a template. I need to figure the syntax out myself but as it is 11:00 pm here in California that will have to wait until tomorrow (sorry). Maybe you'll beat me to it- if not I'm going to take another look at it tomorrow. Happy editing! Signaturebrendel 07:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Expansion of project

Please see the WP:PIIR talk page for a discussion on the expansion of the project to a Project on International Relations theory. — Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 03:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Germany officially no great power

http://www.welt.de/data/2005/03/05/605209.html the term is Mittelmacht. That is beneath a Großmacht(great power).

http://www.zeit.de/2006/45/Schulz?page=4 (lower part of the page)

http://www.internationalepolitik.de/archiv/jahrgang1995/januar1995/deutschland-zaudert.html

http://www.tagesspiegel.de/tso/sonderthema10/nachrichten/impulse-21-berliner-forum-sicherheitspolitik/79202.asp

So all the recent German governments used the term Mittelmacht (Poland for example is also called a Mittelmacht in German, but there is huge gap between the power of both countries) Wandalstouring 15:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no definite answer on the issue. Some may argue Germany to be a middle-power, others to be a great power. There is no "official" list of great powers. Both ideas have equal merit. Signaturebrendel 23:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
This is not about arguing someones position. The official position of the German government is: Germany is no great power, Germany is a middle power (I quoted even an official speech of the former head of state in the Ministry of Defence) Wandalstouring 23:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
This is not official- it's a non-factual issue. If you quoted the "speech of the former head of state" than you couted his opinion, his argument. Signaturebrendel 06:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Great power

You may wish to look at the many new edits to this article—there's a lot of POV, at least at a glance. CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I will, thanks for notifying me. Signaturebrendel 03:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Emerging superpowers

Emerging superpower articles are up for deletion. — Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 06:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank for notifying me. Signaturebrendel 06:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Lincoln-aviator01.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Lincoln-aviator01.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 20:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:1981-Lincoln-Town-Car.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:1981-Lincoln-Town-Car.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 20:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response to WP:Civil

“

"you're simply a European going into a hissy-fit because your subcontinent does not seem to be set for greatness in the predictable ("foreseeable") future" ” “

"Look at you people; you automatically take what Renegadeviking typed at face value because it went along with your own anti-American views." ”


Both statements are inappropriate for Wikipedia as they are directed at your fellow editors. So please comment on the issue, not the editors! I am a liberal who quite frankly disagrees with most of the views and assumptions you expressed on the page, but would never direct any commentary at you personally. We all have different opinions and ideas. So please let's keep it civil and not comment on each other. Best Regards, Signaturebrendel 08:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

How about if the "you're simply a" was replaced with "a lot of Europeans to to go into...." and "Look at you people; you automatically take what R typed" was replaced by "a lot of people automatically take what others type at face value because it goes along with their own anti-American views?" Would that work? Chiss Boy 00:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The first was changed, the second didn't need to be. There's a response on the page. Chiss Boy 22:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Household income

Hi, Beland. This edit was quite uneeded. I obviously confused mean and median. I write a lot of articles (good article) here on WP, so I am bound to make some mistakes. I do appreciate you looking after so my many of my edits of the past year. Signaturebrendel 19:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

It was really the Census Bureau that made that mistake; I certainly wouldn't blame anyone for faithfully reporting their data. And thank you for your many contributions on this topic; it's nice to see Wikipedia has good coverage of it. I've gotten interested after listening to NPR's series on income inequality this week. There's a bit more consolidation I'm going to do, just to streamline presentation...I'm sure you'll let me know if I accidently chop anything important. -- Beland 19:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I will ;-) Regards, Signaturebrendel 19:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Affluence and upper class

I am in the process of replying to your message, but you keep editing it and triggering the "You have new messages" box for me. -- Beland 00:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Professional and working class conflict in the United States

I am in the process of explaining the tag on Talk:Professional and working class conflict in the United States, but have not had enough time to finish writing the paragraph. -- Beland 02:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Signaturebrendel 02:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infoboxes with religion as a parameter

I see from your contributions that you've been removing religion as a parameter in certain infoboxes. Consensus is required before altering infoboxes with high usage. Changes to them can effect hundreds or thousands of articles. Unilaterally removing certain parameters is unacceptable without first gaining consensus. I've reverted the changes you made to Template:Infobox Senator and Template:Infobox Congressman because of this. Thanks. --MZMcBride 02:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Was there consensus before adding the religion parameter? If so, I sure can't find it. On both talk pages I see serious debate over whether or not religion ought to be mention. If anything there is no consensus to support the religion parameter-thus I removed it. It seems to me that the religion parameter got to being part of the infobox through "unacceptable" uni-lateral action as well. I will, however, wait for further discussion before doing so again. Signaturebrendel 02:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
As you probably noticed on your watchlist, I've begun a discussion on the Senator infobox to try to gain consensus one way or the other regarding the religion parameter. A dispute tag can be added to templates using <noinclude> tags, however I think that should wait to see where the discussion heads. Cheers. --MZMcBride 04:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I see, I have added my argument to both talk pages and will wait with adding a dispute template. Regards, Signaturebrendel 04:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Social class in the United States GA nomination on hold

On Hold — Notes left on talk page. --Nehrams2020 08:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I was appalled that nobody had reviewed the article for an entire month. There are now several editors who working to remove the backlog so hopefully an article will have to wait no more than a week to two weeks to be reviewed. I know I included a lot of suggestions, but I guess I'm a nitpicker when it comes to approving GAs. But it does improve the article, which you did do a great job on. I will try to look over the article when you finish as soon as I can, but I do have some midterms that may delay my time a bit. I will definitely pass/fail it though within these seven days, so do tell me when you're done. I'm off to bed as well, but good job on fixing so many of those suggestions already. --Nehrams2020 09:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I'll look it over tomorrow some time, right now I'm studying for a test for early morning. I'll let you know then how it is. --Nehrams2020 07:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I reviewed it again and there are still some things that need to be fixed that you didn't address. I crossed off the completed suggestions, but the rest need to be corrected before I'll pass it. Let me know if you have any questions. --Nehrams2020 22:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I failed the article for now since it exceeded its seven days deadline. Just let me know when you finish everything and I'll look it over again to pass it. Good job so far, you only have a few more things to fix. --Nehrams2020 09:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good. I'll review it as soon as I can once you let me know. --Nehrams2020 19:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] American Upper Class

Please see my comments on the talk page. I don't disagree with the page's contents per se, but rather that the page seems overly simplistic. I think it lacks the depth of viewpoints on the term that would make it proper encyclopedic comment. That said, I am not very invested in the article, so I will look to others to improve it. Phil Bastian 17:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The "Social class at a glance" image has a spelling mistake (treshold for threshold in the Lower Class section of the text). If the source image used layers or some kind of separation for the text then it would be easier to change than an ordinary user like me trying to alter the image from its png form. Furby100 03:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Image talk:Class USA.png "Threshold" is misspelled in the "Lower Class" section.

[edit] U.S. Census Pages

Hey.. maybe you can help me. I would like to make the U.S. Cnesus pages below part of the U.S. wikproject. I know how to do it. I just was wondering if there's some sort of nomination process I should go through before putting the tect on the related discussion pages.--Dr who1975 05:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

{{USCensus}}

[edit] Ethnic relationships

Hi there, I'm not sure you know anything about ethnic groups, but I need some help...and you seem to be a well rounded person. There is a big to-do going on in the Filipino people article, and some (actually, one fanatic) want Hispanics to be in the Filipino's "related ethnic group" category (alone with other Austronesians only) Now, I do see the relationship with Spaniards, as the Islands were conquered by Spain, through Mexico (New Spain)...but if only around 3.6% (I'll give them the benefit of the doubt) have Spanish blood, can they be a related ethnic group, as a whole? He argues that blood has nothing to do with it! He doesn't seem to understand ethnicity...I gave him this example:

If Latin American music is influenced by German Polkas and such -does it mean Cubans, Mexicans, and Chileans, for example, are ethnically related to Germans? I know there are Hispanics with German ancestors...but the whole population? This is what he's doing with Filipinos. I even added that Filipinos have very much influence fom China and, to top it off...America! Probably the biggest contributor to their modern-day culture. He refuses to put all three (Chinese, Hispanics, and Americans) and opts for only Hispanic!

I apologize if you don't want to be bothered by a petty problem...Thank You for your time. Cali567 05:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll look into to it tomorrow. Sorry for the delay but I'm currently quite busy in non-virtual life. Regards, Signaturebrendel 06:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for trying to help smooth things out...I don't understand why he treats the word 'ethnic' so liberally?when people speak of ethnic groups it's usually a blood related thing? right? It's commonly used as a 'racial' or 'related' thing (actually related, not the meaning he thinks it means). I think one of the problems is that word...people have a thought connected to it -yet that's not the exact dictionary meaning (he tries to point out). I think he found a loop-hole becuase that state of mind isn't the one people use when thinking "ethnically related". It's very confusing because Chris Sundita argues Filipinos have many Hispanic attributes and they are "truly" a part of Hispanidad (?), yet he firmly denies they are Hispanic??? I may be naive, but things are not always that gray...I'm sorry to rant, but I'm really confused. Again, I appreciate your help when you have other things to do -We all have a life, and it's so easy to get lost on-line!... Cali567 04:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 'North America (Americas)' ... again

Thank you for weighing in on this prior AfD. Even though an apparent consensus supported the prior AfD in some way, and the article has been deleted, this has reared its head again -- please peruse and weigh in. Thanks! Corticopia 22:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Whill look at it soon. Thanks. Signaturebrendel 06:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Las Vegas Strip.png

Just a thought.. Image:Las Vegas Strip.png, at 1744 × 1240 and over 4 MB could use some downsampling. -- drumguy8800 C T 09:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Fashion WikiProject

When I was assessing designer label for the newly-created WikiProject Fashion, I noticed you had left the (now susbtantially revised) {{maintained}} template there on the talk page.

I was curious if you were interested in affiliating yourself with our project — we need a lot of experienced editors to work on a horribly neglected category of articles with a sprawling scope. It seems to me that you could contrinute a little on that article and perhaps a couple of other upscale brands. Daniel Case 05:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lincoln articles

Sorry, but those rainbow images you used on the Lincoln pages are brutal. Just stick to a street picture like 99.9% of all the car photos on wikipedia. No need to take it up a notch, cause it doesn't look very encylcopeadic. 06:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

That is why I will replace these images w/ white backgrounds. Whether or not the multi-color backgrounds are "burtal" is your opinion-and that's fine. I maintain that they are far better than street pictures-which are the worst possible choice. Signaturebrendel 06:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

You're joking right? In case you didn't notice, cars belong on the street or in the parking lot, just like in auto periodicals. Your cut-out background white or otherwise does not cut it for a encyclopedic article. This is not some display of art, put a picture that does the job, not one that looks like party going on. Sorry, but your ideas for spicing up the pictures are not conventional, with regards to wikepdeia convention, that is. That's not opinion, its FACT. CJ DUB 19:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you look up the word fact. This is your opinion and that's fine-but I disagree and completely detest these amateurish on-the-street pics. A compromise I have found with other users-is that I will simply display the cars on white background. Articles need to look professional and a on-the-street shot does not "do the job." As for convention, this is Wikipedia, but there is no convention-our number one rule is to be bold & innovative. We are pragmatics here ;-)!. To be frank with you-I have 13k+ edits and am the sole author of several GAs, so please don't lecture me on what constitutes a good article. FYI: look in auto brochures-you will not see a car on a supermarket parking lot (even if it's the brochure of a really crappy car)-simple dark and white background, however, you will find. Regards, Signaturebrendel 19:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

So you've edited a lot of articles? Wow. That's no substitute for real experience/knowledge in publishing/writing. I'm sorry but the white/rainbow background is 100x time more amateurish than a candid street shot, when you don't have anything else. CJ DUB 20:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC) More important, I think your opinion is considered by you to be the only one that matters. You should follow formatting convention, even in the absense of "rules". How about that pic of Las Vegas on your page? Why don't you photoshop in a sun to make it daylight, make all the lights blue, since that's a crappy pic.? CJ DUB 20:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

These is no convention on WP. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder my friend, that you think a white background is more amateurisch than a white background is just your opinion and you, far more so than I, seem conviced that your opinion somehow constitutes a "fact." Also, stay civil-there is no need to accuse of having no "real" publishin exprience-I merely expressed my displeasure with you trying to lecture me on how I should edit articles. FYI: There are blacked-out and white backgrounds in car brochures and commercials-more so then there are parking lots! The brochure for my Lincoln didn't show the car on a Safeway parking lot-it did however featur a shot with a black/dark-blue background and the car illuminated w/ artifical light. Signaturebrendel 20:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • (I do believe that the brochure images are taken in carefully lighted studios or conrolled environments, not hacked out of said shot of a car in a Safeway parking lot and pasted on a rainbow or even a white background with a drop shadow. Just saying... Also, I think this discussion would be far more comfortable if you didn't bring your obvious seniority into it, either in age or edits. Both of which you should be congratulated on of course; however, I would far prefer to see some good street shots than questionable manipulated ones. Couldn't somebody go to a Lincoln dealership or something on a sunny day and take some shots? Also replied on Talk:Lincoln_MKZ, pretty much the same message. vLaDsINgEr 14:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC))

I already said, that I will chage the backgrounds to white. A White background is preferable to a on-the-parking-lot shot w/ shopping carts in the background. I also prefer good natural shots, but that I mean shots similar to the ones on the Town Car article. But Safeway parking lots shots are no under my definition of "good"- they are tolerable and nearly anything else is a better alternative IMHO. Regards, Signaturebrendel 19:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alleged "Sockpuppet"

I know a Daniel in my political science class from Los Angeles but that is about it, why is that his user page or something? I just opened this account today because when I went on here this morning it said my account did not exist so I made a new one. P.S. what is a "Sockpuppet"? User:Andrew16 18 April, 2007.


Also my teacher said that if somebody gets banned while using the school computers our accounts can get messed up because of something having to do with "IP adresses", whatever that means. User:Andrew16 18 April, 2007.

See Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. At this time I have simply too much cause to beleive that you and Daniel are the same person and that you created the Andrew16 account to evade a two week block. We will see what the investigation yieds. Signaturebrendel 06:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Also how am I "Patriotic"? I don't have flags all over my page. Also I edited the superpower page because we are doing a report on it in class. If you would like I can see if the Daniel in my class is the one you are talking about, I am sure if it is that will explain alot. Also I use my school computer alot and they all have the same "IP adress", so I am sure that is what the problem is. I sure hope you find what you are looking for because I find this accusation insulting. User:Andrew16 11:26 P.M. 18 April, 2007.

Also being in the same class would explain the age, state, and similar edits you accuse me of. User:Andrew16 11:27 P.M. 18 April, 2007.

At the moment there are simply too many similarities, too many coincidences. I can not beleive you just happen to open your account one day after Daniel, who just happened to have the same interests as you, one day after Daniel got blocked. WP has a process to deal these types of cases-let's just wait and see what the investigation yields. Signaturebrendel 06:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Map in "White Americans"

Hello! The map in the article white Americans in not inline with U.S racial classifications. That is why it was removed. If you wish to modify the map, or use a different one, please do so. The current map is inaccurate and not acceptable. Thank you. Padishah5000 23:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

How is it "not inline with U.S racial classifications?" It is based on US Census Bureau data! Regards, Signaturebrendel 23:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
It may partically be based on U.S census data, but to be accurate you would need to include a few more countries, for instance, such as Iran, etc. As crazy as it sounds, that is how the U.S Census, Labor Department and Department of Education, all based on congressional legislation, interprete "white origin" in America. Padishah5000 23:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Maybe if you include a "footer" of some sort in the box, stating that the map in only partially accurate? Padishah5000 23:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RFA

Hi Brendel. Ever thought of standing for adminship? If you're interested, I would be happy to nominate you. Please let me know. · jersyko talk 13:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Great. I'll start working on it soon. Is there anything in your history here that might become an issue in an RFA? I'm not talking about editing disputes with trolls, but rather issues with established users, sysops, or the like. If you would rather, feel free to e-mail me. In fact, I recommend that you enable e-mail, as well, before beginning the RFA process. Otherwise, I will notify you once I finish your nominating statement. · jersyko talk 22:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Jersyko would like to nominate you to become an administrator. Please visit Wikipedia:Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact Jersyko to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/BrendelSignature. If you accept the nomination, you must formally state and sign your acceptance and answer the questions on that page. Once you have answered the questions, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.

Don't forget to enable e-mail and change your RFA's end time once you accept and finish typing the answers to the 3 questions. If you have any questions, please let me know. Good luck. · jersyko talk 00:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Excellent work. Once you are satisfied with your answer revisions, either follow the instructions here to open it up to a community vote (making sure to change the "close" date and time, of course), or just ask me and I'll take care of it. · jersyko talk 12:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I think your RFA is ready, and I suspect it is more likely than not that you will succeed. Discussion will last 7 days, at which time a bureaucrat will make a decision on whether it is successful. Typically, around 70 to 75% support is needed. Unless you object, I will post it for community discussion in a few hours. · jersyko talk 13:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. Good luck! · jersyko talk 19:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:World map worlds first second third.gif

Hi, I uploaded your image on commons to use it in de:Eine WeltThanks -- jlorenz1 23:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfA

There's question 3a that you may wish to answer. Didn't see it? If you don't like the question, sorry. I didn't mean to ask a hard question.VK35 01:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Car Test Drive

In case you hadn't noticed, New Car Test Drive has been proposed for deletion. NickelShoe (Talk) 18:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)