User talk:BrendelSignature/August 2007 to October 2007

Chalfonte Haddon Hall Hotel

I did some editing. I was the original author of the article. Some people had been in and did some automated editing and apparently didn't read their work when it was completed. It left the page a disheveled and incoherent babbling mess. I hope you'll go by and take a look when you have time. I hope it's up to standard. There's very little information in the article, but it took hours and hours of research as the information is scattered.--Charlesemorganiv 01:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings

"Sorry

I am afraid I cannot supply any of the things that you have requested. Have to admit though, your response was worth the $1 million.... Risker 18:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Metros

I don't know exactly what this means, but it would be very discouraging if someone was trying to use his Administrator status to "request" things for an edit war. It's frustrating that Metros doesn't seem to listen to logic or seriously engage on the Discussion page. Isn't that the point of Wikipedia -- assuming good intent, and developing verifiable material through consensus?

How do you suggest responding to this type of activity, and whatever s/he is planning when you lift the edit war embargo?

Brcdck 23:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For full disclosure to BrendelSignature...Brcdck made the comment at saying "What else in the world do you want?" and I made a joke about what I'd love to have in this world. It was a joke to lighten a increasingly heated conversation. And I do believe I have listened with logic and good intent. It has just been extremely frustrating that you have missed the point of what we are saying about the sources...how they work for talking about his companies but they don't work for talking about him. We have reiterated that several times but it seems to go past you each time. We are being neutral and such, you are just not listening to what we're saying about how this article needs sources to help it meet the standards of Wikipedia. Metros 00:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - There are many, many articles cited on the Discussion page which mention the subject. If you Google the name, you'll find even more. It's not accurate for you to say, "how they work for talking about his companies but they don't work for talking about him." Someone who is clearly the CEO and co-founder of a company is by definition very closely linked to everything that happens at the company (or an entrepreneurship Center). It's appears that you/Risker need to spend more time actually reading and understanding the citations that you seem very quick to judge negatively. Where is the assumption of good intent?

Brcdck 03:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you're not understanding this at all. There are plenty of sources about his company's accomplishments and all that, but there's no sources about his life, in other words his biography. THIS is why we keep the tag stating it reads like a resume up. Because it is basically sourced only to summarize his accomplishments with his company but not with his life. We understand you have sources about his companies. But where in the heck do you find out he graduated from Waubonsie High School from a press release about a corporate buy out? None of the sources you're providing are giving reliable, neutral information through third-party sources about his life and not his companies. Metros 04:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Metros, please completely read all the articles cited on the Discussion page. Try to do so without emotion or judgement. You will gain a much better understanding afterwards.

Brcdck 04:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Caturday

Spare some advice? An editor was previously duplicating lolcat on caturday and contested its replacement with a redirect to lolcat, to prevent said duplication. Finally dropped the point, but has since made at least 10 edits to that redirect to point it at a page (4chan) that makes absolutely no mention of the phenomenon, ignoring repeated complaints from multiple editors. However, the editor does seem to make other, positive, contributions to the wiki, so I'd feel iffy about bringing this up on the noticeboard and getting the guy blocked. Requesting full protection for the redirect would probably fix it, but a short time period wouldn't stop him - he only does this every couple of weeks anyway, and it certainly isn't a conventional case for protection, given the very low number of editors (there's one or two others, but only sporadically/weeks apart) that would make other negative changes. Which way would you move on it, or would you just say "suffer through it and keep rv'ing"? Getting to be a slight pain, but it doesn't come up all that terribly often. MrZaius^talk 01:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

n/m. Just hit 3rr violation without any attempt to explain his edits. Puts me pretty squarely in the noticeboard camp, unfortunately. MrZaius^talk 04:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems another editor already took care of it. I am sorry for not being online to react quickly enough, but I haven't had much time for Wikipedia lately as I'm quite busy in real life. Feel free to let me know anytime you need an admin's help - just remeber that I'm not going to be online as much for the next couple of weeks. Thanks for being a great editor. Regards, Signature ^brendel 06:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Rationalwiki

A tag has been placed on Rationalwiki, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia per CSD a7.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. P4k 06:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, I need your help

Hello, Googie Man here again, asking for your help with a persistent problematic user. Here's the jist. This is a copyrighted and therefore stolen image which the user implies that he took. Here is the ultimate destination of the image. The original can be found here. Jjj222 took down my legitimately taken image twice and replaced it with one that I'm positive he did not take, despite his claims to the contrary. I don't need to explain to you the obvious and numerous problems this user is needlessly creating. The one unforeseen problem is this - I spend a lot of time and money going to baseball games for the sole purpose of taking pictures I can donate to Wikipedia, and this user, who is really more like a vandal, completely negates my work in a matter of seconds for no good reason. I'm getting to the point that my baseball pictures will simply go to my Flickr page, where I don't have to concern myself with constant protection. Please again, help me and Wikipedia do the right thing. Thanks, Googie man 02:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see, thanks for doing the right thing and seeking admin help. I'm sorry I didn't respond faster. Another admin has deleted the image Jjj222 uploaded. I warned J2... about lying on image source description & WP image policy. I have also restored your image to the Reggie Jackson article. This should solve the problem for now... keep me posted (It maybe take little while for me to respond though). Try and enjoy editing WP, Signature ^brendel 07:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping! We'll see what happens...Best regards, Googie man 13:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I spoke too soon

He's baaaccckkkk. Here's the Reggie Jackson page with the stolen image. Here is the page for this troll's sockpuppet. Thanks in advance for anything you can do to stop this guy. Googie man 14:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have semi-protected the article for 4 days in order to prevent newly created socks from continuin the edit warring. I will take a close look at the accounts you've listed above this evening. Signature ^brendel 18:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Googie man 18:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NRA

On the National Rifle Association you added a POV tag, but added nothing on the discussion page. Feel free to add some comments so people can discuss, work on it, etc. Arthurrh 08:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing, I will. Signature ^brendel 18:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just did. Signature ^brendel 18:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your contribution to the talk page seems to be saying "This article doesn't have enough critical viewpoints represented, so therefore the article does not have NPOV". Is that a correct summary? 98.197.101.8 03:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Justice (economics)

Hello, BrendelSignature. Concerning Justice (economics) and your addition of the 'wikify' template w the Edit summary "This needs to be Wikified; proper WP reference templates need to be used," could you be more specific? I am familiar with the Wikipedia:External links guidelines & believe that that article conforms with these guidelines. You are welcome to copy this & your response to the Talk of the article. Otherwise, I'll look for your response here. Thank you for your help. --Thomasmeeks 12:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BrendelSignature - I believe you were looking for {{nofootnotes}}. Oh, the sweet buttery goodness of Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup
Thomasmeeks - Primary concern with the article was presumably that the gigantic "References" section contained so many works:sentence that they couldn't have possibly all been used in the creation of the article. I've moved the ones that were not clearly cited above into the article proper as Wikipedia:Footnotes, and moved the others into a Further reading section, per Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#Standard_appendices_and_descriptions. Feel free to move them back into the article one-by-one as actual in-line citations. From the edit summary, I sincerely doubt that Brendel intended to imply that they were a WP:EL violation, although, again, the list was rather lengthy in comparison with the article's length.

Echoed the latter point on the talk page. MrZaius^talk 12:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MrZaius you have answered the question for me! (Thx!) Thom, sorry for not being more specific - I actually wasn't aware of the footnotes template (there is an overwhelming bounty of that delicious sweet buttery goodness if you ask me ;-)). Just to be clear, there were two problems I found w/ the article:

For many of the listed reference works footnotes, connecting them to the statement they support, were missing
You also used what seems like standard APA citations (APA, 1999). Yet, on WP articles we use reference templates that create footnotes - see the link MrZauis provided above.

Regards, Signature ^brendel 18:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thx, Brendel. Tried to fix the problem by means of the current Edit wout losing advantage of what I believe is a very useful bibliography for follow-up or improving the article. Which is not to say that conciseness is not wout its advantages as well. BW, Thom Thomasmeeks 20:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. If you don't want to cite a piece of literature as a reference through footnotes, you can still place it in a "Fruther Reading" list, so readers will continue to see what else is available to for them to do further research. Signature ^brendel 05:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Googie Man again, continued....

So since our last correspondence, the troll struck twice more by insisting on putting on a stolen image on Wikipedia, and claiming that he took the photo, which you can see here. Also if you have a look at this troll's user history, which you can see here, his last 7 edits have been exclusively with this Reggie Jackson picture. If you'll do a little digging on this person, you'll see that they have a very checkered past with WP, and have multiple sockpuppets. I've contributed to Wikipedia at a time when pretty much no one else was editing on baseball articles, and WP's Google ranking was on the 4th of 5th page. Now some random vandal is so much of my work, and this person is basically considered an equal. I'm sorry to be such a pest, but please at least send this person a message, give them a 72 hour ban or something. I'm really very close to being done with Wikipedia, but I don't want to be. As always, thank you Googie man 19:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there - as of now I don't have enough for a block yet. I have left what I beleive to be strong warning on his/her talk page. If he/she continous a block will become appropriate. Don't let edit warring get to you. Regards, Signature ^brendel 05:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As always, thanks for your help. Best regards, Googie man 15:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree Image:World_map_worlds_first_second_third.gif

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:World_map_worlds_first_second_third.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. But|seriously|folks 05:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the template, I'm using a script. The problem here is that the original image and its creator are not identified, which gives us a GFDL problem. Can you add that information? Thanks much. -- But|seriously|folks 05:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:Wixom_Lincoln.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Wixom_Lincoln.jpg. I noticed 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 freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

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 even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rette tast 10:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, per the "reasonable" question, if you can locate a contact at the plant, I'd suggest calling and asking if they offer a tour. If yes, it's replaceable. If no, it plainly can't be and you can answer that point on the image page by saying "secure facility yada yada no guests yada yada." That ought to satisfy even the most pedantic of editors that it can be used on Wixom Assembly Plant. On the other page, it should be fairly simple to replace. MrZaius^talk 11:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank for the tip - though right now I'm a little too busy in order to contact FoMoCo, but thanks nonetheless, great advice. Regards, Signature ^brendel 09:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Typo

Not sure if you're aware of this but, there's a typo in your header graphic on your user page. You have "Wikiepdia" in there. Just a heads up :) Metros 02:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know - I wasn't aware. I appreciate it! Signature ^brendel 02:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lexus articles

Greetings Brendel! I hope you are doing well. I realize you are very busy, but if you have the time, I was wondering if you could look over the Lexus LS article and give any suggestions on how to improve it, maybe try again for GA status. A lot of changes have been made since the last attempted GA review, and of course more improvements can be made. Additionally, if you have the time to look at any of the other Lexus articles, that would be great. I have often looked towards your work with luxury vehicles as a guideline, especially the manner in which you have combined elegant ways of writing with a neutral tone. I have patterned the award sections of the Lexus LS and Mercedes S-Class articles after the one in the Lincoln Town Car GA.

I am also pleased to note that the Lexus article was awarded GA a few months ago, however this past week two users, one anonymous, have complained that the article seems a bit too laudatory, in response to which I have been making changes. Because there is only one other GA of a car make, and AFAIK no FAs, it is difficult to have a good model on how to improve the article further. I really prefer specific feedback rather than the general statements of praise or issues that 'drive-by' editors add. I'm also grateful for suggestions that don't simply strike down sections of text and people's hard work, but rather finds ways to build on, improve, or transform it (please excuse me venting a bit). Your opinions would be appreciated, particularly since (sadly) there don't seem to be many serious contributors to some car articles lately, only those that change a word or two. Thanks again. Enigma3542002 10:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to disturb you, I assume you got my message and are still busy. Anyhow, take care and talk to you later (if you are available). Regards, Enigma3542002 19:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh darn it! I completely overlooked your post. I'm sorry - I will take a look at the article and make any suggestions once I get the time. I'm truly sorry for the wait. Signature ^brendel 01:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, Brendel. I have also asked others for their suggestions. Hopefully the input of experienced Wikipedians like yourself will help improve these articles. Thanks. Enigma3542002 02:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I realize you are busy, Brendel, but I am sorry to have to report on the actions of a recent Lexus article editor. I have chosen to do this privately as I wish to avoid escalating the tension and conflict. The information is at this following link [1] if you have the time (I have also contacted another admin who has helped in the past). Thanks for your understanding and any assistance.Enigma3542002 03:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An admin has advised me to be as conciliatory as possible, while still observing the behavior. It is very difficult however but I am trying since no one else can/will help. Enigma3542002 08:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing the right thing and contacting an admin. As this users seems to be doing little more than adding his/her opinion to the article, I have advised him/her that Wikipedia does not feature editorials or original research and reliable references are required for all statement included. The other admin who's advising you is corrct, "be as conciliatory as possible" but be frank as well. Approach the other user directly and advise him/her politely of WP policy. If he/she continues to ignore our policies even after ample warnings, admin actions will become an option (If he/she becomes incivil contact an admin immediately - such behavior isn't acceptable on any grounds). Keep me posted (just remeber that it might me a short while to respond - though I should be able to check in at least once a day). Regards, Signature ^brendel 09:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Brendel, but maybe you or someone else can. It's been 3 weeks since the first POV pushing occurred. I have tried to be accomodative, and make revisions, but what I have received in return is just more criticism, malicious editing and edit warring without regard for sources, and now the use of talk pages and articles as a soapbox. The other user seems to be in an ivory tower, passing judgment on the article and attacking lines that others have found to be acceptable. A lot of it is borderlining but the cumulative effect is clear. In response to the user's last edit, which again involved original research/disregard for sources, I decided to just give up and not bother to fix the inaccuracies, because I know it will just get reverted again. On the talk page, the discussion is not how to improve the article, I find it is turned into a theoretical debate and I am not interested in debating one's theories on branding. I've decided to leave for awhile. Thx for helping out despite being so very busy. Enigma3542002 09:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem - I have removed the POV (so you it won't count against you should there be a 3RR complaint). If he/she continues to revert - it would be considered a slow-motion edit war which carries pretty much the same consequences as a regular edit war. As for soapbox commentary, I will take a look and delete most of it. Thanks for being a calm and levelheaded editor - I will check back in tomorrow and will take a look whether or not there have been further developments. Good night, Signature ^brendel 09:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So saddened to have to do this, but I have filed a RFC report on this user: [2]. Enigma3542002 22:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reggie Jackson Vandal back

Obviously your warning went completely unheeded. His edit warring edit was reverted almost immediately, however if he isn't blocked, he'll just do it again. You can see the edit here. I'm completely out of patience with this guy - please help. Thanks, Googie man 21:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I just reverted an edit by his sockpuppet, Jjj222, doing exactly the same thing that you can see here. So if this doesn't deserve a good blocking, I don't know what does. Thanks, Googie man 14:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked him/her for 24h and left an explanation on the talk page. Regards, Signature ^brendel 09:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again. Hopefully your block will also be effective for this person's sockpuppet. Best, Googie man 14:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]