User talk:BrendelSignature/April/May 2006

Help again,

I'm asking for your help again regarding a proposed merger that I feel should not go through. I recently broke out the Renault Alliance article from the Renault 9 article because the Alliance material, and facts about Renaults alliance with AMC was buried in the 9 article and not as clear as it should have been. In any event. Could you provide your input on the matter on the Renault Alliance talk page? Stude62 16:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Prestige_cars_copy.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Prestige_cars_copy.png. 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:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Image legality questions. 22:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Added licensing. Thanks. Regards, Signature^brendel 00:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:1995LincolnTownCar.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:1995LincolnTownCar.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

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

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Image legality questions. 10:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Added licensing. Thanks. Regards, Signature^brendel 00:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Shooting break reinstated

Hi- I wanted to let you know that I have reinstated the term "Shooting break" on the station wagon page. My sources for this term come from various publications, including periodicals from the 1930s, and Donald J. Narus' "Great American Woodies and Wagons" (Crestline Books, 0-912612-13-4). Most commonly the term was used in the Nethlands, Begium, etc. and applied to wood bodied station wagons based on sedans. The "break" occurred aft of the steel front sedan doors, with the wooden body from the rear doors to rear gate. Where the "shooting" comes from is anyone's guess, but the term is is still used, especially amongst collectors of Woodies. Stude62 13:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

{{American mobile phone companies}}

T-Mobile is there as it is a US Cell phone carrier (providing service), not that its based in the US (which I know it isn't) Admrb♉ltz (T | C | k) 06:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so you list all cell phone carries which operate in the US. I understand, thanks for clarifing. Regards, Signature^brendel 06:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Pay site question

Hi- I'm asking you this question since you are very active in the Auto section and have contributed to the Lincoln LS page... There is some issue on posting links to paid sites on that page. Is there some Wikipedia rule against linking to a partially or fully paid site? It seems to me that this is irrelevent to a potential researcher. I certainly don't want to be limited to only free information when I do research using Wikipedia. I have posted the link twice only to have it deleted by someone who is compaining about linking to a paid site. I believe that this may actually be related to some underhanded tactics from other sites. I have neither the time nor inclination to police this. What do you suggest? Thanks, joelincoln 4/18/2006

Any update on this issue ??? Seems like one person on the "external links" page feels as I do.

Thanks for your time and interest in this. joelincoln 4/25/2006

It's been deleted again by the same person. Is there some way to control this? What's the next step? joelincoln 5/5/2006

Possible RfC, and I need your counsel

Hi- There is exists a strong chance that ApolloBoy and I will be asking for an Request for Comment on User:Take Me Higher primarily because the image situation continues to exist in quality of images that he up loads. While I value his enthusiasm, I am frustrated by his lack of communication - when we do hear from him, the comment is cryptic in nature. I really, really don't want to do the RfC - I was the target of one once and it got really ugly. But if we do this, I want to ensure that it takes the high road, and focuses on the quality on the images. I am beginning to think that this is one of the only ways that we might get through to him. What do you think, and would you support the RfC with commenting on your encounters with him? Stude62 16:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Automobile image quality standards

I welcome your input on Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions#Images. --SFoskett 18:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

RfC on Take Me Higher

The RfC on Take Me Higher was begun by Karmann today. I have asked him to sign it, considering that he started it. Could you hop on over and take a look at the content of my addition (but please, do not alter it) and if you agree with I have said, you may sign in the appropriate area. You may also include any issues that you have with his contributions. But I have to emphasize that I want this RfC to be one that both shares the problem with the community, but takes the high road in aspects. I've left the same message for others as well.Stude62 17:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:SOMA_SF_Embarcadero.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:SOMA_SF_Embarcadero.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

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

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 12:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

No problem, I have added the correct copyright tag. Thank you. Regards, Signature^brendel 15:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Infoboxes

Brendel, I was looking at the Lexus LS and other pages on a higher-resolution monitor (1280x1024) than before, and noticed that, when viewed in a maximized window, the infoboxes turn out to be longer than the sections and turn out not to be synchronized with the corresponding section. Would you prefer to leave the page as is, or rework the infobox syntax? Thanks, DonIncognito 18:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I just set the resolution on my monitor to 1280X1024 and see what you mean. I responeded on your talk page. Thanks. Signature^brendel 19:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello again Brendel, sorry for the delayed response. Anyhow, I'm not very well-versed in Wiki syntax so the only method I know that synchronizes the infoboxes and sections is the one I used in Lexus GS, for example. That does, however, have the unfortunate consequence of the infobox head being above the section line and the infobox effectively "belonging" to the previous section. I know that you do not favor this approach but I don't know of any alternatives. If you do, please let me know! For now, I won't be making any changes. Let me know if you have any ideas. Thanks, DonIncognito 14:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Volvo Cars

I noticed that you had changed the manufactor from Volvo Cars to Ford motor company in some articles on volvo models. I reverted that since its all lies, all Volvos are built by Volvo in Volvo factories. Yes the Volvo car company is owned by Ford but thats a whole other thing. --Dahlis 14:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Image:CAMap-doton-Palm-Desert.png

There are concerns that the city of Palm Desert is misplaced on Image:CAMap-doton-Palm-Desert.png. Can you address that issue, perhaps on the talk page? Thanks, -Will Beback 22:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Palm Desert

I noticed that you have heavily edited the article El Paseo. How are you familiar with Palm Desert? RENTA^{FOR LET?} röck 23:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes I wrote the El Paseo article. I own a vacation condo in Plam Desert and travel there at least once a year. Regards, Signature^brendel 02:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Volvo Timeline

Someone was complaining that the Volvo Cars Timeline is messed up [1] - please have a look and see if you can "fix" it. --T-dot 09:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I fixed the model spans, otherwise the template looks fine now. Thanks. Signature^brendel 14:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Houshold at large

No problem, I just saw it and decided I have to do something beneficial for the WP finally. I've had so much fun with that, I am sorry for poking fun at that, I just couldn't help. I make a lot of stupid typos and other mistakes too, I just hope somebody corrects them too, until I find them out and have a good laugh myself :D

One other issue that occured to me while going briefly through those articles is that so many of them are rather POV and seem to try to argue a case rather than provide any information anybody would be looking for. Perhaps this might not seem so from an American viewpoint, but, well, that's what POV is. In such delicate issues, superb referencing is a most, IMHO (which is why I try to stick with some light fare like cars or Eurovision :D ). Bravada, talk - 21:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Now I've seen the Upper middle class article has been tagged with GA. I might have missed it, but has it really been through the whole nomination procedure and has somebody NOT involved in the editing of this article reviewed it and given it a go? Bravada, talk - 20:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

PS. As promised, I will try to give some more constructive remarks to the "houshold-related" articles in a moment.

The UMC article was a collaborate effort and if anybody minds, they can take the GA off. Thanks for the future recommendations. Regards, Signature^brendel 20:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I take it it was NOT through the procedure then :D I DO mind if it the GA tag is being placed on articles that have not been reviewed according to the procedure, i.e. put in the GAnominee list and then reviewed by somebody who has not contributed to the article. That's just how GA works, otherwise we just depreciate the GA tag. Bravada, talk - 20:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

So, you don't think the article is GA material? All other articles I have tagged as GA are still GA status. I mean if you don't think its GA material and deprciates the GA status, I understand and I won't be offended. I usually don't follow the GA procedure beucase, well, it takes to long. But if it so important to you then go ahead and take the GA tag off, I uderstand that your trying to preserve the GA status and as there are other articles I have significantly contributed to in the GA class, I appreciate your efforst to keep up the prestige. Regards, Signature^brendel 21:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I never said I don't think so and this is totally unrelated to the issue here. The issue here is that Ordnung muss sein and the GA procedure is the GA procedure. Why don't we just put "PhD" after our names anytime we believe we are clever enough to deserve that? Please remove the GA tags from all the articles where you put them without going through the procedure. It might take long, but, well, that's how it works. GA is a distinction, it's not easily earned. There are also other classification systems on WP, AFAIK, perhaps you can get a review faster or even self-grade the articles under them. Perhaps you could even start your own grading system for sociology-related articles. But GA, even if not as prestigious as FA, is an institution governed by the rules one should obey, IMHO. Bravada, talk - 21:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Naja, wenn Ordnung sein muss, muss halt eben Ordnung sein - Korintenkakerei ;-) (that's supposed to be funny). Most of the GAs were appropriately added, but after a couple I just found it easier to be the judge myself and think I did a pretty good job, but okay... let's keep the order. I agree, what if everybody just did so... the GA category would lose its prestige. Afterall I would mind if people just put Ph.D. behing their names. Regards, Signature^brendel 21:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Danke schön für Deine Zustimmung :D OK, jetzt werde ich endlich mich mit dem Kommentar des "Obere mittelklasse" Artikels beschäftigen. Mein Deutsch is noch schlechter als mein English, lol :D

Dein Englisch ist eignetlich gar nicht mal so schlecht- besser als das so mancher Muttersprachler ;-). Signature^brendel 22:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay I just read over this discussion and have come to the conclusion that I really didn't express myself very well as to why I didn't follow the GA policy. First, I saw that one article I was working on suddenly got a GA tag in the disucssion page after two years in existance. I though, well this user just added the tag, coming to the conclusion that user just come by a good article and add the GA tag if they think its appropriate. I didn't know about the nominations process until you told me, and by then I was used to just tagging my own articlea unwilling to wait for another user to do so. In other words, your the first one to tell me of the nominations process. Signature^brendel 00:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)