User talk:BrendelSignature/March 2006

German ownership of RR, Bentley,Mini,McLaren etc[edit]

Gerd, I dont want to sound offensive but it seems like you think german companies own English brands. I was under the impression that germany had no other choice, since Germany is almost like a British colony. I see English media on Deusch-Welle TV all the time and 25,000 British soldiers are still colonising Germany. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4094818.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3842039.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3842031.stm Besides, BMW, and Volkswagen and Mercedes have improved the quality of british brands and are spreading their brand name for free. The english cars are selling like hot cakes. So, IMO without doing any work, the British are reaping all the benefits. Also the contributions of British brands to BMW,VW,DC revenues and profits are negligible. For example, RR revenues and profits contribute less than 1% to BMW's bottomline. What are your thoughts?Samstayton 01:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Luxo Car Reponse[edit]

You commented back on my userpage, but I figure I'd just respond here. I agree, and I see where you're coming from. But, see, finances are tricky, so although i understand the threshold idea, and I can't say its completely wrong, I just think that we should make these clear black lines actually "gray" lines. Just make it that these are the generally held threshold, but there are exceptions. Becasue, when it comes down to it, there truly are exceptions... and there needs to be levels of features and comfort taken into account. So, lets keep the threshold, I agree, but just make it slightly more flexible. I'm not saying lets make a 3-series able to be a high end car, or visa versa... but If a car's MSP is $1000 under the class identification and it fills all the requirements of the avg. car in that higher class... then maybe we should let it be granted that category.
Market's change frequently, and if we keep a "threshold", then there has to be continued accountability for a changing market. But, if we have a "gray line" threshold, then those small flucuations in the market can be "smoothed over". So, as User:Interiot states on the Luxo car talk page, luxury still remains somewhat subjective with general guidelines. I strongly feel we should turn the straight cut thresholds into gray lines. In the end, this will lessen the amount of work needed for the article, because even with changing finance plans and markets, the numbers can stay generally the same.
As far as what i think is unbearably wrong, it is many of the things said in the article such as the percentages. Those numbers just aren't proven... I've never seen or heard of them before. Ferraris aren't luxo cars... neither are Lamborghinis. You say it yourself on your car marque venn diagram. Other than that, there are slight issues such as the "vehicle" defintion, the "flagship" ranks, etc. that I fixed with my major edit. These are things that I am sure you would agree with me on. As for the rest of the article, I agree with what you've said, but as I've said above... the slight change from "strict threshold" to "general guidline" would make this article much better. User:Interiot seems to agree with me as well. So, before the article gets reverted by Sam... I think it should stand as is, and work with it from here. I hope we can come to a conclusion on this increasingly obscene wiki-war (ha!). Thanks a lot! Peace! Zouf 03:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Luxo Cars![edit]

This argument is becoming obscene. Using Merriam Webster as a primary source and decent extrapalation from that:

A luxury vehicle is a vehicle which provides a great abundance of ease and comfort. Although there can be a great range of "vehicles" that offer luxurious settings, a true luxury car will be a car (sedan, coupè, hatchback, station wagon, roadster, etc.), a light truck (light pickup trucks), or an SUV. Luxury vehicles place more emphasis on comfort, appearance, and amenities than on performance, economy, or utility. Furthermore, they usually offer more modern technology, higher quality materials, and are often built in smaller numbers than more affordable mass-market vehicles.

I cannot stand to continue an asinine wiki-war over an argument which I have repeatedly disproved. I do not mind to be corrected, but for goodness' sake, correct me. Most notably Samstayton. Please, destroy my argument. I welcome anyone to. It is clearly structured on the talk page of luxury vehicles using bullet points. I have decontructed Samstayton's argument and have disproved his own sources.
The frustration is that no one is disproving me or improving my own article, they are simply saying "I am right". Clearly, you are not right, as I have proved Sam wrong. But, now is the time for a rebuttal from Sam / Brendel. I welcome you both to deconstruct my argument. Go ahead! But until them, for goodness' sake, accept my own argument, as I have proved it repeatedly.
I am yet again formally requesting that I deal with Brendel in these matters, please. Sam has reverted his OWN TYPOS. He has replaced FAULTY INFO! What is that!? I would much rather deal with Brendel than Sam's mass-reverts without looking. Also, Sam, Wikipedia official policy dictates that it is better to improve the newly editted topic rather than completely revert...

"be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily: Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it. " (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution#Avoidance)

so, yes, I do know Wikipedia. as the quote dictates, improve my own edit... and you can do this by disproving my argument. Note, however, that my argument supports a guideline rahter than a threshold.
I conclude with a few examples that should give you an idea of the oddness of your system.

Due to special financing and prices, Mercedes lowers the MSP of their E500 to $59,000... but it still remains a mid-level sedan.
The MSP of the 3-series puts it into the entry level category... and someone buys an M3... and its still entry-level because of that system
A person buys a car for $37,000 from GMC... therefore its not luxury.

Luxury is more than price. The idea of a threshold limiting the car because of its price to classify it is absurd. My argument solves this problem!!!! Also, Ferrari and Lamborghini are not luxo cars. Brendel states this on (Image:Prestige cars copy.png). The percentages are still unsourced. This paragraph is a general restatement of my argument. Please read my entire argument on the talk page of the Luxury vehicle article, and also read the entirety of my edits to get a better idea of what was done.
Also, note, everybody, that some of the edits I did were copyeditting. They were independent of the contextual argument. These included fixing the flagship sedan issue (clearly the S65 is the S-class flagship, not an S500), also I fixed some of the linking issues which took away from the article. These changes, I am sure, would be agreed upon by everybody.
As per the Wiki-policy stated above! (note, I am doing this based on a legitimate policy), I am reverting the article back to my original edit phase. THIS IS WIKIPEDIA POLICY. Sam, do not simply revert this again. you will clearly be going contrary to all of the assumed "good faith" and be attacking me. Also, Sam, if you're going to revert, don't revert the typos! Zouf 01:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism by Zouf[edit]

Gerd, this new preson has started vandalising the article with impunity. He is also playing politics by tacitly supporting you. I have worked a lot on this article jus as you and do not wish to see this vandalism continue. Because of the nature of wikipedia, a well-sourced well referenced article can at once be vandalised by persons like Zouf. I have plenty of energy but no time to keep reverting like he is doing. This is also because of the R&D work I am doing and the projects I am working on at the moment. The future of this article looks very bleak and will likely loose its authority because of this persons careless edits and involvement. If he continues this low quality modification and vandalism, this article will loose its flair, sophistication and factual base. Samstayton 06:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I have been busy working on real estate articles here on wiki. I have the article on my watchlist and just like you want to keep it safe from vandalism. I'll revert any future edits that weaken the article. And depending on what's next confront Zouf once again. I think you know that I have a strong interest in this article and am quite willing to defend it. If you have any further suggestions on what to do, please let me know. Signature ^brendel 21:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aviator / MKX clarification[edit]

Originally the new crossover utility vehicle for Lincoln was named the Aviator - replacing the discontinued SUV version of the Aviator. This is a well known fact, and we still have a number of prototypes running around Dearborn with the Aviator badging. The name was changed to MKX ( or perhaps more correctly MkX ) in December. That was the point of the "formerly called the Aviator" note. Just wanted to clarify that for you. --T-dot 02:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lincoln MKS Update[edit]

I have been working on a major update on the Lincoln MKS - more details have been officially released to the Press. It will debut as a 2008 model, not 2007 as shown in the Lincoln Table, but I could not figure out how to change your table on production start model year from 2007 to 2008. Wonder if you could do that for me. I did change the "flagship" (Town Car) line in the table to "full size", because the MKS is being called the Lincoln flagship (for now) but the current Towncar "flagship" will remain in production for the foreseeable future. The previous Continental was also "the flagship" in its day, so in my view the term "flagship" is too subjective and variable with time, and usually represents the "featured" model that promotes the brand name, with the most current technology. As we have discussed, it is better to sort and tabulate these vehicles by size and configuration, rather than "mission" or "marketing intent". Anyway please review the article and the provided press release info source (and any others you might turn up) for more useful tidbits. Just be sure any new sourced information is quoted and credited to a Ford or Lincoln executive and not just rumors and gossip from some enthusiasts, or unofficial "leaks" from some insider that may or may not be valid. T-dot

Note - your newly added paragraph on the MKS concept is duplicated in the previous paragraph. Also - the last line of the article contains the quote where the Lincoln Marketing Manager calls the MKS "our flagship". [1] Nevertheless the MKS does not belong on the same timeline as the flagship Town Car; instead the Continental timeline line is more appropriate as a predecessor, along with perhaps the V8 LS timeline - it can span both of those. The MkZ span can be reduced to follow on the V6 LS and Zephyr timeline. T-dot

Prestige vehicles[edit]

Hey, Brendel, I moved Prestige car to prestige vehicles for two reasons:

vehicles is plural, as car wasn't
vehicles encompasses more than "cars"

I hope this move is OK with you. Also, it might be a good idea to archive your userpage too. It was the arena for a lot of debate and has become quite long =) Congrats on The Technology Barnstar award! Zouf 00:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, moving that article was a good idea. Regards, Signature ^brendel 22:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Technology Barnstar for Gerdbrendel![edit]

I hearby award Gerdbrendel the **The Technology Barnstar** for his hard work and dedication to car transport articles (especially luxury and prestige cars) and the Automobiles Wikiproject! Thank you for your awesome work! - Bobo is soft 00:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Automotive flops[edit]

I saw your comment regarding the Mercury Mystique and agree with you (as per my discussion on the Wikipedia Auto Project talk page). I believe that the original opinions are coming from Karmann and sometimes he confuses a failed brand or a failed make of car with a catastrophic failure like the Edsel, etc. But for his age, he impresses me with his passion regarding cars, etc. Stude62 01:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I justed visted Karmann's user page. Yes, his knowledge of cars really is impressive considering his age. Signature ^brendel 01:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flagship[edit]

Hm, I see what you're saying. But, theres a major flaw in what you're saying. Most flagship cars are not the most sold car! BMW 760Li, S65, Carrera GT, Enzo, and Hummer H1. These are lesser sold cars, but when you think BMW, Benz, Porsche, Ferrari or Hummer (respectively), you think these vehicles! Maybe not on the west coast, but on the east coast, the Cadillac is by far Caddy's most iconic car. I mean, it permeates society over here! Being frank, most people don't know what the DTS, and I'm being honest about that. So, I would at least call for putting a double box there and putting both cars there. So, since the most sold car clearly doesn't determine flagship status (see above examples), and typically the most expensive car is flagship (not necessarily, just a factor), it would make sense that the Escalade is the flagship vehicle... not the DTS.
The same goes for the Lincoln's. I know you're a TC fanatic, but I think there should at least be a double box there for the Navigator. Again, whne an average, non-car person, thinks of a "flagship" by Lincoln, it's almost always a Navigator.
I regretfully say most of this. I think that the DTS and TC should be the flagship cars. But, because of hip-hop music, the flagship vehicles have changed. I do not mean to refute what you said with the other authors, but I'm merely saying that when someone thinks Caddy, they think Escalade. When something thinks Lincoln, they think Navigator. Thanks! Peace! --Zouf 13:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will wait this whole week before refering the "luxury vehicles" article for deletion to an administrator. I have listed "point-by-point" the statements which lack references and I have shown how this article is mostly illegitimate. Also, I have changed my role at Wikipedia. Instead of adding content, I will mostly focus on articles with fraudulant references, no references, or wrong references. And the "Luxury Vehicles" article is one of them. A least for the moment. Best wishes Samstayton 01:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please giving ultimatums comes of as aggressive. Thank you. Regards, Signature ^brendel 02:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An Arising Issue[edit]

Brendel, I am sure you are aware of Sam Stayton's reversed personality and his "new role" on Wikipedia. I don't intend to understand it, and I'm not going to try to. But, one thing concerns me is his seeping in of unsourced "thresholds" into the luxo car article. We had a lengthy debate on this, and it was resolved. Now, I am going to comment out his graph again, as the +/- 1% is absurdly accurate, and so are the numbers. He doesn't even explain how he got the numbers, or how they change. So, just so you know, I am going to comment it back out. This is getting to be tough again, with Sam back, so, we'll need to cooperate (we were doing pretty well I think). His comments about referencing are absurd. I mean, jeez, do I have to cite the words I use because the definitions are semantically based? Or, do I have to source a comemnt that says Toyota owns Lexus? Better yet, it is specified in the article that these are subjective guidelines, open to change and fluctuation. This absurdity he is claiming is obscene. Furthermore, his lack of apology for his attacks against me (and I daresay some attitude towards you) make this even worse. I do not mind Sam contributing, but not in the manner he is. I wanted to extend you the courtesy to see how I feel and what I am going to do. Thanks a lot! Peace! --Zouf 06:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]