User talk:BrendelSignature

; Archives
	November 2005 to January 2006; February 2006; March 2006; April 2006 to May 2006; June 2006 to December 2006; January 2007 to May 2007; May 2007 to June 2007; Administrative requests archive; Thank you section;

Link to message templates for my own use.

Thanks yous and other nice things

Thank you notes and barnstars from other editors:

See the "Thank you" section for posts I really appreciate!

Welcome!

Hello Brendel, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! HGB 08:31, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've been editing as an unregistered user for a long time. I've made improvements to hundreds of articles, corrected spelling and grammatical errors, and challanged POV for almost 2 years. I've never had any urge to register officially until I noticed your page, and your contributes. I then realised that I would like a record of what I've done, and perhaps a snappy, efficient user page like yours. I'm not 100% proficient in how to use this site, or it's opportunites, and think I might benefit from someone more experienced than I. Would consider helping me make a signature, and maybe even a small, non-complex user page? I've researched your contributes, and would be honored if you would assist me in becoming a more substantial contributor to this site. If not, or if you don't have time, I completely understand! I have a lack of time myself, thats probably why I've never registered. Just a thought I guess... Regards, smooth_operator, September 8

Signature^brendel

This is my new Signature! Signature^brendel 06:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like it! I do have a question about how you managed to post this nice signature each time you sign. Surely you don't write all of the code out each time? Nhprman 07:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And of course, I just did three seconds of research and discovered on my own that the "nickname" line in My Preferences does this just fine. Thanks! I'll be working on a nicer one, like yours. User:Nhprman ^UserLists 07:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm glad you like my new signature. Thanks. Signature^brendel 07:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection

Hi! I'd like a clarification on the page protection requests. Please see the notes I left. Thanks — Zerida 22:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oky-dok. Signature^brendel 22:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note, BrendelSignature. I left another response with more clarification and links. I hope this clears things up, but please let me know if you have questions. Cheers, — Zerida 22:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have looked into the matter, using the links you have provided I was able to block 3 sockpuppet accounts and have protected both article for 2 days to deter the creation of new socks. Regards, Signature^brendel 23:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help. What about Coptictillthebone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Grouphave19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? They were created a week or so ago and would be able to continue editing. Also, after the 2-day expiration, if the problem persists, should I request longer protection? — Zerida 23:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if the problem persists, you need request protection again. I'll look into the two accounts above. Regards, Signature^brendel 23:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Blocked & blocked. Signature^brendel 23:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On June 29, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Income inequality in the United States, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Well Done Brendel! Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Explain yourself

Please tell me why you never locked the suggested articles in this discussion.[1] Your inability to act on it results in further vandalism, and users have now given up trying to keep them correct. I demand an explanation!24.63.96.152 02:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The users did not provide me with sufficient evidence to take administrative action. There was no obvious case of vandalism on the articles in question and no evidence was provided to link anon IP edits to sockpuppets of any banned user. Without sufficient evidence I cannot/will not take action. I cannot block users and protect articles -which excludes new users from editing- at whim. I need sufficient evidence - which simply wasn't provided in this case. If you want articles to be protected, report them on the appropriate noticeboard. Signature^brendel 05:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong again. All you had to do was look at the articles history and you would have seen the vandalism. The statement "no evidence was provided to link anon IP edits to sockpuppets of any banned user." is absolutely laughable, it was coming from the same ip range as a sock puppet ip that was blocked, and all the edits were to the same articles that the head sock puppet vandalised. Are you bliind? How could you not see this?24.63.96.152 14:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No you are wrong. I did look at the history and could not find any case of obvious vandalism. I saw a user adding some genres I have never even heard of to a list of generes I have never even heard of. There was no obvious vandalism - the edits I saw could have been conducted in good faith. Second, just becuase two addresses are similar doesn't mean they represent the same person. There simply was not enough properly documented eveidence to warrant protection of these article and block some of the IPs. Besdies, the reports were filed in a highly improper manner - coming to an admins talk page and saying "here... block this IP because he's a vandal" is the equivalent of going to the police saying "arrest that guy he's a criminal" - Unless there's properly documented evidence no action is going to be taken. That properly documented evidence was missing. I am also quite frankly tired of your aggressive tone. I am suspecting that you are Hopnop69 and are trying to air your greivances here using anon IP addresses - I have filed a report at the appropriate noticeboard. Regards, Signature^brendel 17:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I am Hoponpop69, I wasn't trying to make that a big mystery, but I quit editing with that acount because I quit wikipedia. You must be blind if you couldn't see the obvious vandalism. Glad to see you filed a sock puppet report against me, yet when someone else was consistently putting wrong information up you could care less. personal attack removed.68.114.92.198 18:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Median_Household_Income_International.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Median_Household_Income_International.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) 12:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The graph in question has been replaced, so this one can be deleted. Signature^brendel 18:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why?!

Hi! You blocked IP. Why you discriminate not registered participant of the project "Viki", if other person the vandal? Then block both participants of the conflict.

I do not discriminate against anon IPs. Could you provide a link to the case you are refering to. I am quite sure that any IP I may have blocked violated Wikipedia policy. It is not customary to block both parties in a conflict unless both parties have engaged in a blantant violation of WP policy. If only one party violates policy, then only one party - not both - gets blocked. Also, please sign your posts. Regards, Signature^brendel 04:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance

Hi. You've previously blocked the person I'm about to speak of for 3RR and disruptive edits. I wanted to talk to you about this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/71.10.169.33

Look at these contributions from this IP address. You'll also see on his talk page that he has a name, BKaldenberg, though he's rarely used it. Both have been blocked for 3RR and violating WP:EL in the past. Here's the deal:

His name is Brian Kaldenberg, and as you can see from those contributions his sole purpose on Wikipedia (outside of a single Virginia Tech Massacre vandalizing) is to add the link www.gamerosters.com to the pages NCAA Football Series and NCAA Football 08. As you can see going to that link, Brian Kaldenberg is the owner of that website.

This is clearly in violation of WP:EL, it definitely constitutes as spam and as a conflict of interest given he's the site's owner. I also know he is the site's owner, not just from the Wikipedia user name, but from series of emails I've had with him. He is fully aware of the policy and just chooses to disregard it. As he claimed today in one email, he makes $20-40 a day per day from that link (although I doubt it) and simply doesn't care about the policy.

I'm writing you because this 3RR stuff isn't enough. A permanent solution needs to be found. He's knowingly violated policy dozens and dozens of times as you can see, with no end in site. He clearly has no other reason for his presence at Wikipedia other than to spam these two articles. Day-to-day block are not enough, he simply needs to be banned. It bothers me that a person would behave like this, and I don't want him to "win" as a matter of principle.

So I'm asking you, what can be done?►Chris Nelson 17:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

Please read the talk page at Talk:List_of_ethnic_slurs_by_ethnicity#WP:V, there needs to be citations for entries on this page. Please do not just re-add entries without finding a citation. Thank you very much for finding the citations on the ones you did. Until(1 == 2) 01:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll try and find some but to be honest this is low, low on my priority list. Regards, Signature^brendel 02:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Thanks!

Thanks for pointing out my error on the personality type pages. I had just been adding the attributes to all of the pages that didn't have them, and was so buisy making sure that I had the attributes strait that I failed to notice the section title was ISTJ for all of them. As soon as I saw your revert, I went back and corrected them. Classic INTP, not seeing the forrest for the arboral life forms. Thanks!--Scorpion451 03:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Developed country

1. You've forgotten to add three countries to the IMF list: France, Netherlands, and San Marino. Note that San Marino is recognized by the IMF as a developed country, as one may see in the IMF page, in the second section (beginning with the words: "A few").

2. You've mistakenly put "South Korea" between Japan and Luxembourg.

3. Why did you add the "OR" tag to the "CIA and IMF" list? Instead, you could simply change the heading "CIA and IMF" to the heading: countries/territories classified as "advanced" by CIA and IMF. This is not an "OR" since my suggested heading doesn't include the word "comprehensive"; Instead, the heading declares its specific sources (CIA and IMF), and doesn't serve to promote any position (since the word "comprehensive" doesn't appear in that heading).

4. The word "comprehensive" should be deleted from another heading which you havn't marked as "OR".

Eliko 18:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As to your reply - see my response in my talk page

Eliko 08:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First World

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		Brendel, for your great addition of the colourful flags for the article First World, I award you this, the Brilliant Idea Barnstar! --Seong0980 03:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)( Seong0980 03:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC) )[reply]

Thank you! I appeciate it! Signature^brendel 07:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sandinista National Liberation Front

Please comment on editorial implications of the Avoid Neologisms Guideline on the Sandinista National Liberation Front Talk page. [2] Abe Froman 16:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

see my response

Eliko 21:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did. Thanks, Signature^brendel 00:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]