User talk:BrendelSignature/May 2007 to June 2007

Image:Income-curve-$10k.jpg

I was going to edit the image, as it has been tagged for cleanup, and make the text bgger, and prolly also write he axis titles, however, the image seems to have been cropped abruptly after 200k, and it would be good if you could provide the complete image, or the data... CyberoidX 02:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i have marked your image as redundant, as i have uploaded a new one in PNG format.(smaller file, just 5kb) You can re-upload mine as your own if you wish, i have no problems with that, just tell me if you do it, so i can delete my version. CyberoidX 05:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are interested, i could convert all your graphs (you have done a really extensive work) into png / svg and send them back to you (preferably thru email) so you can upload them as a better version. I really dont want any credits for it. Write back if interested :) CyberoidX 18:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I yet dont know about SVG, but I could definitely get the files sizes to <10kb in PNG. Will be working on them. CyberoidX 02:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on your sysop'ing :) I tried looking around for programs that could make charts and then export into SVG, but didn't come accrosss many. So the only option is converting them to png, and adding the various titles for the X and Y counters. Plus, i'll need your email address, u can get me on cyb3roidx at the google email domain :) CyberoidX 12:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Modifying others comments

Please do not modify others comments, this is very bad wikiquette. Lcarsdata 21:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I was simply correcting Daniel's comment as I knew w/ certainty that he left out the word "second" in his post. Signature ^brendel 21:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help with a sock puppet

Hi I noticed you blocked some people who were sockpuppets earlier, and I was wondering if you could help me with this case:

[[1]]

I filed it earlier this week and no one has done anything. I'd be more patient but he continues to vandalise pages under various users. It's a pretty open and shut case, and I'd appreciate it if you could help. Thank you.Hoponpop69 23:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was able to block two of the three suspected sockpuppets, see my conclusions on the case page. Regards, Signature ^brendel 03:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Also if you let me provide evidence for the third one I can prove it's a sock puppet, everyone edit that that ip made was a revert to one of his AFI-PUNK's edits. Furhtermore the IP was obviously coming from the same area as the other ip that was banned as most of the numbers in the ip adress where identical.Hoponpop69 04:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you can provide me w/ diffs that show me how AFI-PUNK's and 87.....'s edits are the same, I will have sufficient evidence to block that anon account. Signature ^brendel 04:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to From First To Last are identical[2][3]

Edits to Minutes To Midnight both involve fooling around with what is listed under genre[4][5]

Edits to Take Me (song) involve editing a Papa Roach song to make the genre say alternative rock.[6] AFI-Punk did the same edit to the Papa Roach songs She Loves Me Not (song)[7]. Not to mention changing the genre to Papa Roach songs was one of his trademark edits, as you can see from his contributions, there are too many cases to list.[8]

Edits to Scars (song), yet another Papa Roach song, is identical to an edit made as AFI-PUNK.[9][10]

Furhtermore the IP was obviously coming from the same area as the other ip that was banned as most of the numbers in the ip adress where identical.Hoponpop69 04:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the above diffs, the short contribution history of 87... and the similarities to that of AFI-PUNK, I have blocked that IP as a sockpuppet. Signature ^brendel 04:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for helping me with all of this. I also found another account in that ip range, [11], that I suspect is him. I will show my evidence for it later on, as I am getting tired of this right now.Hoponpop69 04:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, he's got another one:

Evidence for 87.167.211.93: Commented on my talk page using the same awful grammar and English, about Papa Roach's genre.[12]. The IP is also yet again in the same range.

This is getting ridicolous, is there a way you can band this IP range?Hoponpop69 19:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's back under the name User:Ska-Lord. Again, on my talk page, he's arguing over Papa Roach's genre with very poor english[[13], and he's switching the genre of the Papa Roach singer[14].Hoponpop69 17:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello? Are you there? Can you help me?Hoponpop69 02:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was really busy with other things - yes I will look into it tomorrow morning Pacific Time. In German we have a saying, "Besser spaet als nie" (better late than never). Anyways, sorry for the delay. Regards, Signature ^brendel 05:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, unfortunately I've found another one of his between this short time period.[15] Hopefully you'll have all these accounts banned tommorow.Hoponpop69 02:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to look into it on Monday. I am sorry for the repeated delay - but I have been (and will continue) to be quite busy. Regards, Signature ^brendel 02:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder that you said you'd deal with him today. For what its worth since we last talked about him he has threatened me on my talk page.[16]Hoponpop69 01:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just found another IP that he's using.[17]Hoponpop69 01:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm upset about this. The more you wait the more articles he vandalises. This is an open and shut case, can't you just block him and his ip range?Hoponpop69 08:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No I can't block is IP range. If you could point to certain article that he/she continously vandlises (so I don't have to sift through the edit history of all these IPs, I can protect those articles until he/she loses interest. Signature ^brendel 04:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked the main account (incld. a block on account creation) due to incivility and sockpuppetry. Signature ^brendel 04:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Here are the things that need to be protected:

Category:Papa Roach songs
Papa Roach
Lovehatetragedy
Getting Away with Murder (album)
The Paramour Sessions
Papa Roach: Live & Murderous In Chicago
Post-hardcore
Jerry Horton
The Used
Jacoby Shaddix
All articles in Category:Papa Roach songs

Whoa Whoa Whoa!

Why was he blocked for 48hours? Every single edit he's made has had to be reverted? Allowing him back, and he's just gonna start causing all these problems again, I guarantee that to you.Hoponpop69 02:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be watching - don't worry. I must assume good faith - even in this case. I'll give him/her a second chance. If he/she continues I'll block him/her very quickly. Signature ^brendel 02:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guess who's back?[18]

In addition to the previous list the following pages that he's been editing should also be locked from letting new users edit:

The other ones which I told you to look yesterday were not locked and were subsequently vandalised by him.Hoponpop69 02:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't deal with this, look at what he writes on my talk page to see how hard it is to communictae with him.[19] It is clear this person does not fully understand the english language. I'm trying to explain to him how you need sources, and what makes a source reliable but it's extremely hard. Maybe you could try talking to him.Hoponpop69 09:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I blocked the two sockpuppets and the main account (for using sockpuppets to evade a block). Let's see what happens after the block expires. Regards, Signature ^brendel 18:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well as usual he evaded the block again.[20] I'm sick and tired of reverting his edits, and refuse to do it any longer. Because of him going on wikipedia feels like a chore. There has got to be a way to block his ip range, or at least you could have locked the articles I asked you to lock a while ago which you never did and he further vandalised them. I've reached a tipping point. If he is not dealt with I am no longer editing or using wikipedia. Hoponpop69 22:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From another user affected by this sock puppeteer

Hello. As an admin, you must be busy, but I'd just like to add further to this enquiry. This sock master really needs a stronger ban to prevent them from doing any further harm on all the articles s/he is editing. These articles need to constantly be reverted after they have edited them. nothing will stop them from vandalising continually. They seem to understand the full implication of their actions but still continue. If there is nothing that you can do personally, could you point me in the right direction or let someone else know about the situation? Thank-you.

Seraphim Whipp 23:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brendel, strike one was you not responding to me yesterday, strike two is you not responding today, if nothing is done tommorow, I am through with wikipedia.Hoponpop69 01:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am quite busy with other projects, please report this sockpuppetry case to the appropriate noticeboard. I simply don't have the time to look through the edits of dozens of IPs in order to see whether or not they are sockpuppets of the user in question. I have little understanding of the subject matter and what is obvious vandalism to you, may not neccessarily recognizable to me as such. Before a block an account I need to make sure that it is a sockpuppet - doing so requires a lot of effort for me in this case. After spending a lot of time looking through contributions histories I was able to identify and block two sockpuppets as well as issue a 48h block on the main account. But administrators are not detectives. So, please report sockpuppets here. Please document and present your proof clearly so admins don't have to go out doing detective work. Thank you. Best Regards, Signature ^brendel 05:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did that in the first place, and they locked it up after a few days. I'm not making another one, I'm sick of this, now the guy is stalking me, I'm done with this.Hoponpop69 05:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cat Stevens

hello - this article has been plagued by the same editor who has attacked Missing white woman which I see you just semi-protected. The editor comes in under a series of IP addresses, including these User: 75.30.115.123, User: 75.18.178.174, User: 75.31.103.99, User: 75.18.177.210, User: 75.18.171.102 in the last few days, and so blocking them seems pointless as there's a moving stream of IP addresses. Would appreciate your protecting Cat Stevens for the same reason - he repeatedly is adding the same incorrect material without explanation, discussion or comment on talk, and it is becoming disruptive. Thanks - let me know if I need to write this up somewhere else - I thought it would just be easier to go to the admin who protected his other target page. Tvoz |talk 18:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick thanks

Thanks for catching that second ref error in Talk:United States - beat me to it by seconds. MrZaius^talk 20:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Artistic displays of information

Could you explain your thinking behind Image:American Income.png and Image:American Society.jpg? I think the information in both is valuable, but I don't understand the value of the decoration you've done with it. American Income.png appears to be a picture of text; it would seem like actual text would be better in articles as it could be more easily edited and searched. I'm tenatively planning on replacing all uses of it with equivalent text in articles. American Society.jpg, on the other hand, does seem like data best presented in graphical form, but the unnecessary decoration clouds the fundamental data. I'm planning on replacing it with a simple stacked single-bar chart. — Alan De Smet | Talk 23:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The thinking is simple. People respond best to visual cues. The thinking is the same as is periodicals who go out of their way to decorate their graphs or textbooks who feature "Fun Facts" in blue-bordered boxes on yellow background. It is supposed to make the information easier and to digest through making it more visually exciting. I used the high rise to add some meaning to the income quintile concept in Image:American Society.jpg - the image is quite clear, if American society was a high-rise where floor corresponds w/ income-the quintiles would occupy the following floors. I adds more meaning to the concept than a mere bar graph IMHO. Image:American Income.png I used the background graphics to convey information in a more exciting & appealing manner. As you said in the heading of this seciton it is an "Artisitic display of information." Signature ^brendel 23:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the intent, but I think it's the wrong way to go. In the case of Image:American Income.png it's very problematic: it's harder to edit, harder to review edits, harder to search, and basically inaccessable for people who cannot see. Replacing it with simple text would be a clear win. I still plan on replacing it. As for Image:American Society.jpg, I still believe that a simple graph would be better. Wikipedia isn't a textbook for disinterested students, or the graph guy for USA Today trying to add color. Someone visiting Wikipedia presumably wants good information, and we should minimize needless decoration, providing more pure information. — Alan De Smet | Talk 01:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image talk:American Income.png is probably a better place to discuss that image; I've resummarized my comments there. — Alan De Smet | Talk 23:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My report

Regarding this: [21]

That was not a 3rr report, it was a "1rr" report, he violated his parole which says that he can only revert once per article per week. I posted his Arbcom parole right there. I'll post it again for you here: [22]. He violated his parole, which again, states that he has one revert per article per week, and he just did three reverts within two days on one article, which means Dacy69 violated his parole. Please read the case carefully and give the proper block length as is usally necessary in a case like this: [23]

Thanks.Azerbaijani 23:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see, I'm sorry for not running a more careful background check. I have issued a 48h block in accordance w/ the Enforcement policy laid out in his case. Thank you for bringing this to our attention. Best Regards, Signature ^brendel 23:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your quick response. Also, since this is an Arbcom parole violation, you must register the block here (Blocks for violation of revert parole): [24]Azerbaijani 23:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, this is my first block for a parole vio ;-) Signature ^brendel 23:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to continue here. Please see Church of Kish - both Grandmaster and Dacy69 reverted back twice already in past 2 days each on the article I think. I suspect it is violation of paroles.Sincerely, Hetoum I 04:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I've shortened the block to twenty-four hours since other violators in the case received similar blocks. The lengthy block for a first parole violation would only serve to deepen the animosity between Dacy and Azerbaijani, making the former unhappy and giving the latter unnecessary retribution. -- tariqabjotu 04:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Signature ^brendel 04:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking care of my first parole violation block. I had not issued a block before for a prole vio and tried to figure the block length from statements in the AC case-thanks for correcting my mistake. Regards, Signature ^brendel 04:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah... I didn't realize you were still online. I saw the break in your contribution history and thought you were off to do something else. Also, I wouldn't really call your block a "mistake". -- tariqabjotu 04:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually gone for a while and am just checking my watchlist right now. Thx, Signature ^brendel 04:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. Unfortunatly, Dacy69 has once again broken his parole on the very same article. I have had to report him once again (see the report here: [25]). What is interesting is that his first edit after coming back from his block was another revert. Since he did not wait the full week from his last revert, this means that he violated his parole again, bringing the total to 4 reverts within a 3 day period.Azerbaijani 15:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An Inconvenient Truth

Hi, I've butted in on An Inconvenient Truth and removed the prot and blocked the two warring editors for 3RR/edit warring. I don't think anyone else was warring over this so would like to let others have their chance to edit. I didn't ask you first, for which my apologies, and you will of course feel free to reverse this if you see fit, especially given that I've been involved with the page before (although not, it would seem, for a while) William M. Connolley 09:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Regards, Signature ^brendel 05:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked User

It seems USer:70.109.54.8 whom you blocked for 3RR, is back to his old tricks. His first three edits after the block expired are here here and [26], which are identical to the edits he was warring with previously. Perhaps a longer block is necessary. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 23:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question about your graph

The graph you created http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:International_Median_Household_Income.png lists the US/Canadian GDP/capita as in the 35 - 40 K range. Another graph on the GDP page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_Domestic_Product gives the 2003 GDP for "Western Offshoots" (which I assume mean US, Canada, Oceana?) as about 28 K as of 2003 (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:World_GDP_Capita_1-2003_A.D.png). If I am right about what Western Offshoots means and Oceana doesn't pull the average down greatly, that's a pretty big discrepancy (your figures are more than 25% higher). So what are your sources? Are you confident of your figures in contrast to the sources for the other graph? Should we change/revise one or both graphs? At least a note of your sources could be added to your graph's page. What do you think? Kriegman 12:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My source is the International Monetary Fund-so yes I am confident in my sources. I'm not going to do any editing today, but will loook into the matter tomorrow. As for sources, you're absolutely right: I should & will list my source on the graph page. Regards, Signature ^brendel 15:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goguryeo-China wars

Does this article need to have the unreferenced tag on every single section? It makes the article look bad and I think we only need one at the very top. However, other editors are reverting this and they are POV pushing. Good friend100 13:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, you only need one tag at the top of the article-I'll take a look at the article's history tomorrow. Signature ^brendel 15:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Barnstar of Diligence

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For your efforts on improving the quality of the Superpower article and ressolving issues in a professional and non-biased way

User:Daniel Chiswick 4 June, 2007.

United States

Good job with revising the culture section. I think you've addressed some of my concerns. I want to apologize if I came off to strong on you - I should not have pontificated to the question of another user; as you were right in that regard. We obviously differ on definition of nation-state and globalizations impact; but that is really moot for the article as far as I am concerned. I appreciate your due diligence in these matters and look forward to working with you in the future on a more cordial manner. Looking at your user boxes I see we have something in common - which brings to mind the quote famous by Will Rogers' to paraphrase "I don't belong to any organized party. I'm a Democrat." --Northmeister 20:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excel files for your graphs?

Would it be possible to get your Excel files for your graphs? In particular I'm interested the source files for in Image:Income 1967.jpg and Image:Families US Historical.png. I'd like to replace them with SVG versions (probably using gnuplot) and having your files will speed the process (so I don't need to re-enter the data). You could post them online and share a link, or just send me copies via email ("chaos" before the at sign, "highprogrammer.com" after). Thanks for putting the graphs together; they're interesting. — Alan De Smet | Talk 23:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Class_America.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Class_America.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion 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. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 01:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:GDP_USA.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:GDP_USA.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion 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. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 01:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Panarjaidde Sock

According to my talk page, User:Snoimaert has been comfirmed as a sock by an admin User:Jayjg. However he has yet to be block. Can you do the block? Kingjeff 02:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[[Could you provide me w/ a link to where Jayjg identified him as a sock-once I see that decision I will be able to take action if it is needed. Signature ^brendel 02:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there was a formal proccess. At least not on this page. Kingjeff 02:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry. Problem's been solved. Kingjeff 02:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK-glag to see the issue has been resolved. Signature ^brendel 03:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William Gaillard

I believe the issues that brought about an edit war have now been resolved. Don't have anything to add to the article, just thought i'd let you know. Londo06 20:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll take your word for it and have unprotected the article. Signature ^brendel 20:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. It's still a controversial issue in the media. But the issues on the wiki article are resolved. Londo06 20:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears the Man Utd fan User:Edcoomber is still interested in playing with the article, just thought i'd let you know. Doesn't warrant a full protection on the page I don't believe. Londo06 17:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fella Edcoomber continues to remove cited sources and sanitises the article. ie from 'this has seen by some British officials as Uefa' to 'this has seen by some as Uefa' massively changing the impact. The source states who made the comments. I believe the user is been unnecessarily disruptive in respect to the current edit of cited sources. There are comments regarding old edits that bleed through to the current edit. This user has also removed a positive aspect of Gailards work which is the anti-racism drive in which UEFA is involved in. Londo06 12:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

need help with edit warring

Here, you can see that user:Assault11 is repeatedly deleting sourced information. He is simply deleting the information that he doesn't like. I don't want another edit war. I already warned him about 3RR and reported him once but he doesn't seem to listen. Could you help sort things out and warn him? thank you. Good friend100 01:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

United States

Been good working with you. Two things:

(1) I don't know where you stand on the structural issue, but it would be helpful if you weighed in on Talk:United States#Improvements recently made.

(2) I think we need a couple sentences at the end of the Culture section's lead text addressing the issues of race and sexuality in contemporary U.S. culture. (Regional identity is another issue addressed nowhere in the article.) If you concur, would you like to take a crack at it?

Best, Dan—DCGeist 15:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a comment in support of social science sections together on the talk page and will add a mention of race and gender to the culture secton. I will also see how I can fit in regional identity). Thanks for the ideas and great work you have put into the article. Regards, Signature ^brendel 20:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tools

I've been debating whether or not to bother seeking adminship, and it occurred to me that I ought to just ask an admin if it was worth bothering with: Are the tools worth seeking? Aside from yourself, I've only seen a handful of admins that actively involve themselves in the mainspace pages that I watch. I find myself wondering whether the tools would become more of a distraction than a help. What do you think? Get much out of the time spent exercising your admin rights? MrZaius^talk 07:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they're worth it but, I'll answer your question in a bit more detail once I return to editing this afternoon (pacific time). Regards, Signature ^brendel 19:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just ran into a protected template that I was hopin' to edit. Aside from basic things like that, what's the pitch? Are they likely to lure a man away from Main namespace entirely, or just something you deal with occasionally? MrZaius^talk 16:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't think the tools "lure a man away from Main" space - for me the tools have offered a chance to help out wiki on occassion by cutting down on disruptive behavior. So I guess you could say for me they are "just something you deal with occasionally" - though the choice is yours. There isn't a minimum amount of time you have to spend doing administrative tasks, the tools simply enhance the ways in which you can help Wiki. I commonly used the tools in between my mainspace edits: edit an article, leave a post on a talk page, check the noticeboard, protect a page, edit an article... and so forth. Regards, Signature ^brendel 18:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback - Sounds like something I might be interested in eventually, then. MrZaius^talk 00:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear that - I'd support your RfA! Regards, Signature ^brendel 00:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New York Times article

There's a New York Times article you may be interested in. It is titled The Class-Consciousness Raiser. It is located here. --JHP 22:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great article - I just read it, very interesting. Thanks. Signature ^brendel 00:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MKS Update

Just an FYI as a Lincoln guy - the Lincoln MKS "flagship" has been delayed for launching from July 2007 as a 2008 model year, to Feb 2008 as a 2009 (see this for info). I've been stumbling around fixing references to this, but I am pretty sure there are plenty more to be done. Just illustrates why crystalballing and establishing firm dates on future production cars really should be avoided, since when we have sources like this telling us stuff that later proves to be false. Here are some more pics, for your teasing enjoyment - be sure and click the gallery thumb images in the article, for nice high-res versions. I can't help but go ahead and say with the covers off it really looks sweet, and I think you will really like it when you finally get see it. It really does the "flagship" title justice, and is an outstanding replacement for the previous Continental-class and the "loaded" LS V8 luxury-sport, and very comfortable in the company of Lexus and BMW. But fear not, the venerable Town Car lives on... --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 12:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking

This user [27] has vandalized many articles and has five warnings on his page but he has not stopped, can you block him? User:Daniel Chiswick 13 June, 2007.

Done. Regards, Signature ^brendel 22:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you are quick. User:Daniel Chiswick 13 June, 2007.

Your Contributions

Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, especially American related subjects.

Thank you! I really appreciate your comment (I will post it in the "peer recognition section of my user page") Again, thank you. Signature ^brendel 00:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then it should go with a picture :-)

		The Barnstar of National Merit
		Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, especially American related subjects. Shahram9 15:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Signature ^brendel 17:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please help me?

On the article Germany User:Lear 21 does not let me contribute good information. In the article on the last sentence of the second paragraph it says this...

"It is a founding member of the European Union, and with over 82 million people it has the largest population among the EU member states."

It added this...

"It is a founding member of the European Union, and with over 82 million people it has the largest population among the EU member states, and the second largest in Europe after Russia."

Lear 21 one says that it is "Redundant information" and doesn't belong in article about Germany, even though it is a fact and is useful information. He has a nationalistic bias towards Germany and the EU and acts like nobody can edit an article without his consent. He has a history of this and many users have called him out on this, but he doesn't listen and still continues to revert constructive edits if he does not agree with them. I reverted his edits twice and then he told me it was "Redundant information", so instead of getting into an edit war with him I am reporting this issue to you, an admin. Thanks User:Daniel Chiswick 14 June, 2007.

I see. Well, I can't just block Lear as this isn't a clear-cut case of vandalism (though I do he did get awfully close to a 3RR vio). I have opened the issue for discussion on the talk page. As an admin I only want to use blocks as a last resort, so let's see if a compromise can be found on the talk page. Thanks for not engaging in an edit war. Regards, Signature ^brendel 18:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, I wasn't asking you to block him. I just needed to bring in a third party to mediate this situation because I do not want to violate 3RR and get block while handing this issue with him. User:Daniel Chiswick 15 June, 2007.

Ok, I have raised the issue on Talk:Germany. Signature ^brendel 21:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation

Hello,

You are invited to join WikiProject Munich!

There are a lot of things to do in this project. From creating new articles to finetuning articles into featured article status.

How can you help?

You can join a Task Force.
You can help comform Munich-related articles to Wikipedia Policy.
You can get free Munich-related images under GNU Free Documentation License.
You can create and edit of Munich-related articles.
You can do translations from German Wikipedia to English Wikipedia on Munich-related articles.
You can help do assessments of Munich-related articles.
You can help expand articles currently in the Stub-class and Start-class.
You can help reference articles.
Since original research is against Wikipedia policy, you can research topics to expand. This means you don't need to know anything about Munich.
You can help expand stubs and start-class articles and help finetune other articles into Featured article status.

A WikiProject of this nature is very broad. Munich has a rich history in sports, culture, politics along with many more topics. Feel free to help out in your area of interest.

If you want to check the project out you can click the link above. If you want to join the project, you can sign up here.

If you have any questions feel free to contact myself or any other member of the project.

Kingjeff 17:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Income

Oh, I think we can (and should) discuss the change in median household income since 1967 at the point in the text where we currently talk about "the standard of living ha[ving] increased for nearly all classes" over an extended period. (The short-term shifts lend themselves more to the infobox treatment.) At the same time, we should mention that households are much more likely to have multiple earners now than in 1967, right? I left a query for you on the article talk page about the median (?) income per household member matter--deal with it after some sleep. On the domestic servant line, I'd been feeling it was a bit out of place where it was--but maybe that's not the issue so much as I think it needs a little explication. Could you write another sentence there drawing out its significance in relation to the changing nature of the U.S. social structure?

Thanks much for the barnstar. I'd meant to thank you earlier, but I got all wrapped up in net wealth. Next on the agenda: Better sourcing and perhaps edit on the following line: "Both the regulatory burden on its companies and its social safety net are smaller than in most developed nations." Maybe right there is where we also need a sentence or two on our tax system relative to our Western European brethren. Best, Dan.—DCGeist 08:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I took a quick peek at your article draft--looks amazing. I'll check it out more in depth tmw. Here's something you might be interested in: [28]. Data from Table 3: Key Changes in Poverty, Income, and Health Insurance (2001 to 2005) might be appropriate for the text of the United States article.

In passing, I think it's bizarre that our government just doesn't seem to want to report median earnings for all full-time workers, regardless of sex. How did you arrive at $39,336?—DCGeist 09:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Brendel. I am contacting you because you are an administrator, and the 'help'/FAQ section suggests I 'contact an administrator'...I need your advice. I am in a catch-22 situation where I cannot create an account because I cannot alter my cookie settings without compromising my security.My settings mean I 'fail' the 'security word' test. This seems to mean I cannot join in/become involved. brendel - can you advise if there is any solution? The only way I can find of contacting a 'Wikihuman' about this problem (FAQs don't help)is via this route. Many thanks, Kangoo. PS: wanted to contribute to the discussion/formatting of 'American Values' section. Oh, and...love the Licoln TC!

Well, I would love to help you -but you need to give me a day to research your problem. I would suggest temporarily altering your cookie settings and then re-setting them after you've created your account. But let look for better advice. Thanks, Signature ^brendel 01:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block record

Hi. It appears that you recorded this block [29] in a wrong place, Koavf (talk · contribs) was not a party to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan. Regards, --Grandmaster 09:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I moved it to the right place at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Koavf .--A Jalil 11:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the mistake. Thanks for your help! Signature ^brendel 19:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you have to do that?

Why did you block the page when it's stuck on "Wrong Info". Angry Sun 21:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Becuase I cannot get involved in the editing of the article itself. You will need find a compromise on the talk page. After all, as an administrator you're told that you will always protect the wrong version (If I was to revert the other party would show up stating that I have protected the "wrong version"). So, plese talk it out on the discussion page. Thank you, Signature ^brendel 22:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]