User talk:Margrave1206

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Margrave1206, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  SignaturebrendelNow under review! 06:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Confused

Hi you recently added this to the upper middle class article: "However the middle class of the 20th & 21st centuries is in no way the original middle class, which were the Renaissance merchants. Nevertheless through their basic actions, political views, lack of art appreciation, rancor for books, boorish demeanor, and basic manners or lack there of, they have indicated that they are the new peasantry." - 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)

Thanks for your response. As I am currently busy it will likely take me day or two to look at your sources. The fact that you were talking not exclusively about the upper middle class does illuminate things though. One thing you should consider is that some social scientists, including myself, believe that most Americans are working class. Thus one can use the term middle class in order to refer to the upper middle class. This brings me to another issue regarding the middle class; it is most commonly sub-divided. If the middle class is indeed to be the majority, as most people believe it is, than dividing it into sup-groups is necessary. Clearly a fully tenured university professor is not in the same class as a unionized janitor though neither of them may be rich nor poor and thus "middle class." Thus we usually have the lower middle class (aka working class), middle middle class (partially working class depending on your definition) and the upper middle class. It is the upper middle class which I believe to be the "new petite bourgeoisie." Referring to the lower middle class and middle middle class as the "new peasantry" may be an unpopular view but is rational. In the American middle class article I try to cover all sub-divisions, sub-groups and definitions. I will take the sources you provided into account and if you have any further suggestion regarding my article, let me know. Regards, SignaturebrendelNow under review! 00:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Images Not Allowed

Hello, I have been reading a great deal of Wikipedias rules and they seem to deter one from actually making an article what so ever. I have been looking and adding to this site ever before I was registered, however now I am registered and it seems to me that rules have changed somewhat up this site. I don't quite understand the rule "Do not upload images found on websites or on an image search engine. They will be deleted" Do they want people to post any pictures whatsoever or not. I can understand about copyrights however once something is upon the net is it not free for all to use? I would like to post images of a model that there is a small article on link Ramona Cherorleu However all her pictures are on the net so I would images that I cannot use them. Also, not just this article but others without images. It seems may images that were once are now gone.

Reply here --Margrave1206 21:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

You asked "once something is upon the net is it not free for all to use". Short answer, "No! sorry."
It was very smart of you to ask before you donated your time uploading images. I hope you like the answer Luke gave you at Wikipedia talk:Fair use#Images!. The rules haven't really changed; in fact the law stops us from copying most images from the web. Here is the full warning:
If you are uploading a file under a free license (not fair use!), consider uploading it to the Wikimedia Commons where it can be used across projects.
Do not upload images found on websites or on an image search engine. They will be deleted.
(For exceptions, see Wikipedia:Fair use and Wikipedia:Free image resources.)
If you can find or make images that meet the exceptions, then we are delighted if you upload them here or at http://commons.wikimedia.org . If you meet your subject, she may allow you to photograph her yourself.
If you have more questions that aren't answered from the links on the Upload form, then please reply on my talk page, or better, ask at Help desk --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The word Caucasian

I noticed in Talk:White_people that you understand the real meaning of the term Caucasian, which is Peoples of the Caucasus. If you click on Special:Whatlinkshere/Caucasian, you will often find articles that incorrectly link the word Caucasian in articles when they really mean White people (or White American, White British or other racial/ethnic terms) I have been correcting these articles as I notice them, but any help you could offer would be very welcome. Note: most of the links on the Special:Whatlinkshere/Caucasian are talk pages, but article pages are also often found amongst the list. Spylab 23:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Americans

I am American, but I completely agree with you what you said on Talk:Anti-Americanism, Margrave. Too often, the United States acts in its own self-interest while championing "freedom and democracy". In our defense, though, I'd like to point out, that most of these policies are instituted by our completely out-of-control government, and are despised by millions of Americans. Only a moderate percentage of Americans are the self-centered, hypocritical cowboys our government makes us out to be. (I also posted this comment on the talk page itself). Sloverlord 03:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh man, dude, I am 101% on your side about anti-america! There is just too much nationalism here! HiFive! Copernicus II 19:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] about Michelangelo

Hi Margrave! I thought that I'd reply here on your page. As politely as I can...

Please don't be anxious about people saying that Michelangelo was gay. There is a great deal of evidence to be weighed, and the heaviest evidence suggests that he probably did have male/male relationships.

Values were different.

  • Two mature men in a committed relationship was rare. Nowadays its common.
  • For a married man to have a "boyfriend" in his late teens was common. Nowadays that is totally unacceptable for a married man, and if a man picks up youths behind his wife's back, she leaves him fast. (unless they have what is called an "understanding".)
  • At that time, in the rather elite circles in which he moved with the Medici, as a youth, it was considered much more acceptable for an older man to have a young man as a "pet" or a sexual companion. This doesn't mean paedophilia that involved young children. And it also doesn't mean exclusive homosexuality. A man of wealth and status like Lorenzo had almost no choice about whether he would get married and have kids.

Nowadays if a man picked up youths behind his wife's back it would be an absolute scandal. To accuse a man of doing that would indeed be libellous. But to say that there is a very good chance that Lorenzo Medici had sex with some of the young men that he kept around him, is simply a sign of the times in which they were living.

So, that deals with Michelangelo's youth.

  • As an older man he wrote a very large number of love sonnets. They were all directed to a younger man. But when they were translated, all the personal pronouns were changed to make it look as if he wrote them to a woman. But students of Michelangelo have known for years that he passionately expressed his love for a man.

So, if we have fairly solid ground to believe that he was homosexual, what then? Had he been living in the 21st century, he simply would have set up house with his male lover, and everyone would know.

How should we react? Do we throw up our hands in horror because our idol is gay?

The situation nowadays in general, and certainly on this site, is that if you keep insisting that it is wrong to suggest a person might be gay, you will accused of prejudice, and perhaps rightly so.

If this genius, who gave so much to the world, was indeed homosexual, so what? In a world where thousands of artists of every type feel quite free to live homosexual lives, saying that Michelangelo is one of them is not a slander. It can only be a slander if you believe that to be homosexual is a really awful thing.

And I'm afraid that is discrimination.

Just in case you are wondering, I'm a straight grandmother.

--Amandajm 12:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi, Margrave!

The reason that I wrote to you on your user page is that you have accidentally made yourself look really stupid by what you wrote on the Michelangelo page. What you wrote is:-

"There is no POOF that M. was homosexual." And by leaving out the "R" you turned it into a joke that some people find quite hilarious.

Please go to the Michelangelo page. --Amandajm 23:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

And that's false : there is proofs of his attraction for boys. It is indeniable. Even Condivi admit that. It is not interesting to know if he slep with or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.218.94.86 (talk) 20:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted message

Margrave, I wrote you here an explanatory message, which I have deleted.

The reason that I have deleted it is that I just read part of one of your previous postings, in which you describe the "Middle class" as boorish, ignorant and totally lacking in manners, among other things.

You are, yourself, (one is forced to presume) one of those boorish, ignorant, bad mannered Middle-Cass people. You make that clearly apparent in your posting. And also by the categories that you have chosen for yourself on your user page. Moreover, you don't seem to concern yourself with how many million other Middle Class citizens you insult.

I don't think that I should waste any more time here.

--Amandajm 02:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re your last message

I am fully aware of the possibility that your Michelangelo posting may simply be a joke. However, as you know, one is obliged, on Wkipedia, to take others in good faith. ie. that you mean either what you say, (or what, despite typos, bad spelling, and bad grammar, you appear to be trying to say).

If, by chance, you are deliberately writing posts to create an impression, it is not quite fair to those who are obliged to deal with you in good faith. There are lots of places on the web where you can take the Micky out of people!

With regards to the content of your postings, there are two reasons why people express prejudice:- ignorance and arrogance. In all good faith, as a teacher, I am obliged to be infinitely patient with the simply ignorant. But when the ignorance is combined with arrogance, I suspect that it is incurable.

--Amandajm 23:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] In the interests of positive and cheerful communication!

The reason that I post messages that are directed to you in particular on your dicussion page must surely be obvious.

I have explained most precisely why I posted on your personal page in the first place. It was out of kindness because your own posting about Michelangelo and the Poof had made you look quite ridiculous.

Perhaps the word Poof has not yet filtered through the fog and ascended to the vocabularly of one with such rarefied ideals.

Seriously now, the last person with whom I communicated on wikipedia who laid claim to such elite ideology and distinguished lineage called herself Lady Catherine de Burgh. But perhaps you never read anything as ultra middle class as Jane Austin. Those books show so little higher sensibility! They were the Mills and Boon of their day! --Amandajm 06:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the above messages are rather weird and beside the point. The poof typo was hilarious, sure. But belabouring the joke only makes it tired. And what is all this middle-class nonsense? We are all here, I presume, to write an encyclopedia, not to post non-sequiturs on people's talkpages. dab (𒁳) 20:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wicked weasel

The article Wicked weasel has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done because the article seemed to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it did not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. If you can indicate why the subject is really notable, you are free to re-create the article, making sure to cite any verifiable sources.

Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and for specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. NawlinWiki 03:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bias article

Hello, I went to the talk page of the lesbian article and twice I have had my comments about the article removed by Gwen Gale. I notice that the article is somewhat bias, it seems very pro-lesbian, which is not worthy of an encyclopedia. I found no scientific nor psychological studies to back up the article. It seems one is not allowed to question or edit Gwen Gale's article. --Margrave1206 21:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

What article? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
The lesbian article. --Margrave1206 21:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
We've got a few hundred... - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


Margrave

Margrave, you would be very kind to specify if he thinks that Leonardo was heterosexual, saying that he was not homosexual. And if it is so, I would like to know the documents that allow him to say that, because I don't want to believe somethink that is not true, if he was not homosexual. Thank you. [[Candid] 14:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC

[edit] Your request at WP:RM re: Creoles of color & Louisiana Creole people

Regarding your recent request to WP:RM to perform the merge above - article merges are not handled in this manner. From WP:RM:

Mergers: To merge two articles, make a request at proposed mergers or be bold and do it yourself.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask. JPG-GR (talk) 22:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)