Hi mate - nice to see the portal up on the namespace! Major thing I just noticed - your category box does not link to the categories! You might want to sort that out! Looks awesome though - I like what you've done at the top! Deano19:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Under Portal conventions (they're there to be broken I suppose), the "Categories" box should contain categories that exist. The majority of those listed in your category box are just plain text... and therefore have no basis as a "Category"... I would delete them but obviously you'd wonder why! But I don't think it can remain in its current format. Either remove non-existant categories, or locate the correct ones. Without blowing my own trumpet, the Category box at P:London is pretty much what you're looking for. There are plenty of other goods ones out and about - P:UK is a good starting point. Deano22:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
P:UKis a very nice example. : ) Actually I'll get to linking things up when I can - all of my "Wikitime" has these past weeks been spent trying to improve one trifling page. There is another problem - the categories around Paris (transport, entertainment, etc) are a mess, so even before I can link there I must clean up first. If you do feel the need to delete go ahead and I'll link up later. Thanks for the heads-up and cheers. ThePromenader15:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, The data's all there on your very elegant portal - see the Streets link I took the liberty of adding (under Districts) [1]
FYI - you have a duplicate Avenue Foch :-) Dlyons493Talk22:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Deleting these pages is no big deal. We can perfectly well start from having no links at all (in the usual way) but I had hoped that starting with red links would be better for encouraging blue link creation. There's enormous scope for creating useful articles on Paris streets - I found writing Rue de l'Abbaye very interesting and informative. Dlyons493Talk00:29, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to take anything you want from fr:Catégorie:Rue parisienne... I have also created categories for each arrondissmeent on Commons (see commons:Category:Paris).
In my opinion, the easiest way to find something in the Nomenclature on paris.fr is to use Google with the name of the street and the word "nomenclature": it works almost always... Thbz18:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pour ce qu'il concerne le 'base des données', je suis justement en train de mettre les touches finales sur une solution plus "efficace" - je te tiendrai au courant. Pour le reste, merci ! : ) ThePromenader10:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Return of "Streets of Paris"
Hi, I'll have a think about this over the next week. I'll certainly contribute something to the project which I feel is a most worthwhile one. In fact, sad to say, I've already contributed a significant proportion of the existing streets with Rue d'Abbaye, Rue Zadkine and Boulevard de la Zone (the first and last entries in the list of Paris streets). But I expect others will take up the baton and run with it. My main concentraion will remain communes though - je resterai avec mes moutons à Wikipedia:WikiProject French communes. I'll think about ways to categorise the streets. Dlyons493Talk23:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Je vous félicite pour le travail déjà effectué sur tous les articles concernant Paris, et le portail en particulier. Peut-être pourrait-il être intéressant de créér un WikiProject sur Paris en particulier. -- Ze miguel13:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
About the Paris WikiProject: actually, you may have been right in creating a project only for the streets: a project about the whole of Paris might have been too large. The two largest areas for work are the history, and the monuments. If you need, I might be of some help with photographs, I work near the Invalides. -- Ze miguel08:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I've added your infobox to see how it looks - pretty good! Let me know when you have the map and I'll finish the article off with that. Dlyons493Talk19:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support
Promenader, sorry for not replying earlier, but just wanted to say thanks for your messages and reversions. It's good to know that there are bona fide editors on Wikipedia. In answer to your question of Are you knowledgable on the subject?, I am a jack of all trades and a master of none (unless being bone-idle counts as a trade). I am not a professorial authority on any matter but I do have a scientific background which means I abhor personal opinions of professional matters in favour of a rigorous scientific approach.
Personally, I am appalled at the blasé approach to some articles - journal editors would throw the author out of the window for submitting articles in such a manner. Thanks again :) Green Giant23:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank for the message, Promenader. I know what you mean about that kind behaviour, you might as well be banging your head on a brick wall for all the good it will do! I was amazed that the best defence he had was a Wikipedia article, which he hadn't fully read, but simply cited a line from the introduction. I look forward to working with you on improving the article because Paris should be a showcase article. Green Giant03:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with you
I couldn't agree with you more, we should stick to official definitions. The aire urbaine should be mentioned only in the context that INSEE intends it for but nothing more than that. Green Giant14:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the message on my user page. I'm glad you like the changes on the page because I was trying to give it a less formal feeling. As to your point about the Ile-de-France and Paris, I agree with that because the article should be about Paris and not Ile-de-France (which has it's own article). Like you said on the talkpage it's ...chip, chip, chip - reinforcing the POV. I question the need for the Paris infobox to contain metropolitan information as if Paris actually encompasses the whole area. At the bottom of the page is a template for Communes of the metropolitan area of Paris, which should really be entitled Communes of Ile-de-France. Green Giant13:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment on Dlyons493's talk page
Hi Promenader, thank you for your kind words. Parlez-vous francais? And to answer your query - it's Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information - a list of every street in Paris would come under that. (note point 3 of this - 'Travel guides') A list of famous streets in Paris would be absolutely fine, and there may even be such an article. All the best, Prototc12:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Je suis galloise, mais je parle un peu français! Encore, merci beaucoup pour ton mots généreux - mais tristessement, je ne pense pas je suis être un administrateur; il y à un beaucoup de votes contre moi. Ça ne fait rien; peut-etre la temps prochaine. À tout à l'heure ;) Prototc21:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Proto's RfA
Hi, Thanks for your comments on my page - seems to me the natural place to have put them. I'm glad you didn't take his original comments to heart because I felt his comment about the Paris Portal further down that particular AfD was also rather out of place (but I didn't want my cvility point to turn into an attack, so I didn't mention it). He's said that he'll think ahead a bit in future and, if he does, then there's been a positive outcome and wiki will be better for it. I haven't looked back at his contribution history but the RfA comments suggest he can be a bit terse and we have too many abrasive Admins already so I think the feedback he's getting at present is good and I wish him well if he does become an Admin (he certainly will sometime - the question is whether it will be this time around - let the community decide!). Dlyons493Talk08:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Map of Paris
Hi !
Nice map. Do you by any chance have a hi-res version? I'd like to add a map in my article about Haussmann (fr:Transformations de Paris sous le Second Empire). I may use yours and modify it to show which axis were added by the Baron...
As a user I greatly respect, I thought you would like to know that I have decided to throw my hat into the ring for RfA. At present I need a couple more supporting votes to secure adminship (there was a slight misunderstanding!) but, as one of the few Wikipedians who have taken the time to compliment my work, I felt you might be a good potential advocate.
I was taking a look at Portal:Paris just now - I see you are gradually battling the categorisation system. Once that's done, you'll be well on your way to featured portal status!
I have noticed your message on User:Hardouin's talk page and must agree with your points cited on his talk page. Since I have myself experienced issues with the said user and if need be, I will be happy to help in the collection of data incriminating User:Hardouin. Do not hesitated to visit my talkpage or reply here (page in watched) on this matter. Regards, Captain scarlet19:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
: LOL - thank you very much - but the Paris page alone has already oodles of 'Hardouin happenings' archived in its history. Your input is reassuring though, as the stand-off has been rather one-on-one until now. I just hope that your problems with this character have to do with fact and conduct - I want to leave opinion and personality out of this at all costs, as these are not my reasons for discord. I do know of this character's other attempts at 'pending revert' holds over other low-traffic articles, but if you can bring something more please do. Thanks. THEPROMENADER19:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that one is a funny one. The "issues" mentioned here refer to the fact that Captain scarlet strongly object to my using American English spelling in French articles. This is ludicrous! Hardouin19:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the 3.5 million m² of office space in the introduction. I've added that sentence because of an anonymous user who was constantly changing the sentence in saying that La Défense wasn't the largest CBD in Europe, but one of the largest CBD's. That figure was simply added as the criteria explaining why it's indeed, objectively speaking, the largest CBD in Europe. Now I agree it doesn't fit into an introduction, but it was the only way to convince suspicious readers. Metropolitan 00:24 15 March 2006 (CET)
No need to apologise to me - but it perhaps best to avoid putting over-developed arguments in a part of the article that is intended to be a broad resumé. The source should be enough to convince anyone methinks. It did have a 'making a point' feel about it : ) THEPROMENADER03:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Re:Paris Page
I had no intention of playing in the sandbox alone, so feel free to join in. I have to apologise for my recent lack of presence on Wikipedia, mainly due to being overworked and underpaid. Part of the change in userpage layout was to practice the simplicity I was preaching and partly the former layout was looking a bit boring. Plus, I now have an allergic reaction to userboxes! Green Giant02:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Paris Introduction
I won't revert the Paris introduction as what is was before you've edited but I fail to understand why you did so. Your editing comment says you've made so in order to bring more coherence but I don't see how it does so. Paris introduction was fine before, how your edit brings more coherence to it ? Metropolitan 15:42, 19 mars 2006 (CET).
Paris
My intent was to break an edit/revert war, and that appears to have happened. I don't mind if you correct any/all of what was reverted, but suggest that you consider doing it a piece at a time, with accompanying discussion. Then, if someone else reverts your edits, I can easily come to your defense. -- Gnetwerker20:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I messed this up. I did study the Talk page, but found it nearly impossible to determine what the issue was and who was doing what to whom. I will admit that I did not do an exhaustive study of the edit history. With respect, the version I reverted and the version I reverted to both seem to have the same basic issues -- they are too long, they use contentious definitions, etc. I have tried to articulate that in my comments. -- Gnetwerker00:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments -- I hope I was helpful. I should have pointed out on the Talk page that I did not do any additional research -- I only reworded and reorganized what was there. I am not really equipped to do the research, and that is an excellent issue to debate on the Talk page (I realize a lot of that has happened already). -- Gnetwerker23:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for asking and feel free to make the changes. It wouldn't really be a continuation of the edit-war because I noticed you didn't feel "threatened" by my suggestions. The oh soooo scary Green Giant08:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have been busy too. I have lost track of which graphic is up for review vis. the demographics. My opinion is that the big one could go onto the separate (and moribund) demographics page, and the one on the Paris page needs to work at no more than 240px width. Perhaps we'll bump into you when we're in Paris in May, at the Italian deli on the rue Lacepede! -- Gnetwerker19:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Won't be there until the end of May, but I'll drop a line then. I've been too busy to keep up with the Paris page. It looks like it's slowly coming together though. -- Gnetwerker20:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We'll be there May 24 for about a week, then a month in Tuscany, then back for a few days in early July. With spouse, kids, nanny, etc, it will be a travelling circus. And I have to take out a second mortgage on the house so we can have dinner at L'Arpege for our anniversary. Your shoot sounds interesting -- I've never been to North Africa, and will prob need to wait until the kids are older to go. -- Gnetwerker21:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
People are still currently debating a better position for it. Some have suggested moving it to the bottom of the page. We'll see how things turn out.
I just find an article that opens with a picture and an infobox a bit jarring. Also, many articles have much larger gaps caused by the TOC. If there were any gaps anywhere else on the page, I'd agree with you, but leaving a TOC gap makes it look a little less cramped in my opinion. --334534533553416:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Paris Underground
nice photos! there aren't too many anglophones underground.
also glad to see that the PC has its own page. I've never done the full "tour," but I do have a sneaking suspicion that I know your guide.
Heyup, thank you VERY for your brief message concerning station naming conventions, it's a relief to see that some people live in the same world as me and see things as they are. Pffeeew, cheers for the clarification. Regards, Captain scarlet21:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sans problemes, le tout est de s'amuser et de faire ce qui nous fait plaisir, faut surtout pas laisser quelques idiots nous pourrir la vie. I got a day off coz I'm not feeling to well so: owned ! Captain scarlet09:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
:)
Dakpowers has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk pages. Happy editing!
The reason for my spontaneous smile? I received one on that night and it made my hour. I figured I'd "pay it forward" and smile at some more productive people. Just hopefully to make their hour, too. :) Sorry for the late response, I hadn't even noticed your message until now. Happy editing! -- DakPowers (Talk) 01:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Wikimapia
Hello! About your questions concerning Wikimapia: you may find all information on WikiMapia page.
Jack
Asking your permission....
Hello, I hope you are doing great. I would like you to review these comments you have made:
There's a couple problems with the section named "GPD and organization of the economy" - aside that the title itself could be better phrased and it's "GDP" not GPD.... a good lot of this section is now allocated to office rental costs, but not only is this hardly at all relevent to Paris' economy, it is a subject that would have a better place in the demography section (office space vs. living space, reasons thereof, etc). In short, I think this should go in favour of more valueable information. I can tend to this if you like.
Notice that there is a few spelling and grammar errors in them. With your permission, I would like to edit your comments into this:
There's a couple of problems with the section named "GPD and organization of the economy" - aside that the title itself could be better phrased and it's "GDP" not GPD.... a good lot of this section is now allocated to office rental costs, but not only is this hardly at all relevent to Paris' economy, it is a subject that would have a better place in the demography section (office space vs. living space, reasons thereof, etc). In short, I think this should go in favour of more valuable information. I can tend to this if you like.
You are the first user in which I am asking for your permission first before editing your comments to a more correct format. Notice also that these edits are very minor in nature and they do not in any way compromise the content of your comments. The main reason I am doing this is to improve the quality of comments on talk pages. This is to create a more professional image in Wikipedia talk pages as well as the other article talk pages. Please view this reference in my talk page here under sub-section 10, Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard. Thank You for your time and feedback on this. --Siva1979Talk to me18:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, rest assured, this was a completely random choice to have you as the first user and first comment to start editing talk pages on my part. Anyway, I wish to thank you for your encouraging comments on this. --Siva1979Talk to me20:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ecclesiastical histories
A need of help. User:Fastifex added (IMHO, crappish and outofdate) ecclesiastical histories on some Italian communes articles (example: Gaeta, Camerino, Otranto). I moved such material to separate articles in the wake of what already done for Lyon or Bordeaux. However, Fastifex is sistematically reverting the moves without any debate; I think he's clearly the kind of user who got stick with personal editing and don't want to listen to others' opinions. Something similar happened when he stuck with prayers in saint articles, when a debate was in course about they were POV or NPOV: he reverted them anyway, without hearing any reason. I write this, in the case somewhat a edit war should ensue. maybe you can look at the articles, judge the solution I adopted and write him some line... Bye and thanks. --Attilios22:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fastifex is seeking for the edit war. He continues to revert my edits without warning or debate. I think his idea is to bring the thing to the third time-revert: he already used such a tactics to impose his stupid edits. Please, if you can, write a line to him if you agree with me. Ciao! --Attilios08:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for the call to order you sent to Fastifex. An example of his latest masterworks: I jumped on a saint article from him, where he (better, the Catholic Enc. from which he copied abruptly) cited Porto, Italy and other places next to Rome without any reference... to Rome itself, so to any reader these places could well have been located in Andorra, Burkina Faso or Tonga. When I reported this to him, he jumped Catholic Encyclopedia and added the entry for Porto, Italy, which started this way: Porto is a city etc. Of course he omitted to specify that it was the nearest port to Rome, but the most comical detail is that Porto does not exist anymore!!! A genius! Ciao and thanks again! --Attilios09:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Aren't you the creator of the article fr:Liste_des_plus_hauts_bâtiments_d'Île-de-France? Or did you move it where it is today? If so, I find it a bit odd that you didn't have more to do with its integration into English Wikipedia - its English writ is not at all the same as its very straightforward and accurate French version! I won't get into the 'who did what' of this, but this has become a mountain out of a molehill - and long-winded, as all 'counter-fact' discussions usually are.
I frankly don't understand this urge to make Paris' suburbs seem, to the ignorant, as Paris itself - there is no discernable goal nor glamour in this faking of reality. Perhaps are we witnessing the 'local' phenomenon of the bad Paris-suburb relations, and the fact that suburbians think it somehow 'better' to be known as a Parisian? Being from a country where living in the suburbs is more 'chic' than living in the city centre, this concept is alien to me - but I do understand the differences, believe me! Anyhow, an encyclopedia is no place for sentiments such as these, so thanks for your help in introducing some referenced reality into the question. Let me just say that all articles on Wikipedia should reflect referenced works, and the "Tallest structures in Paris" article sure ain't that. Sorry for rambling but I'm pressed for time and can't edit things down. Anyhow, thanks for your input, past and future! Cheers. THEPROMENADER 30 juin 2006 à 09:43 (CEST)
PS: vous pouvez trés bien m'écrire en français, mais, s'il te plaît, pour sauvegarder le 'serieux' de nos discussions, ne m'en demandez pas autant : ) THEPROMENADER 30 juin 2006 à 09:48 (CEST)
Now, for the geography. In the french article, I solve it by considering buildings in the Île-de-France région. I believed the name to be fairly well known in the french speaking community, while accurately describing the location. It hasn't been challenged since.
Such a list should not stick to buildings in Paris proper. Doing so would scrap the second to fourteenth tallest buildings in the list, and some of them are very close to Paris. Heck, I actually live near Paris, and I'm working near La Défense. When asked, I'm just telling people I live in Paris, it's easier and there's always time later for precising.
So, the title isn't accurate. On the other hand, it's consistent with other titles such as List of tallest buildings and structures in London, it's not so wrong (nobody's really going to tell La Défense isn't Paris, even if it's true, in an administrative point of view). Blame it on the borders of french communes, which don't tell anything about parisian urbanism any more...
I would leave the "Paris" in the title, but I would make clear what's being listed, clearer than it is right now. In the french article, I wrote a "methodology" section at the top to do so.
Best regards. As you can see, I can write in English, eventhough the structure of my sentences may feel a bit awkward to a native english speaker (which is why I usually refrain from writing a lot of them in the english Wikipedia. — 08:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
So, the title isn't accurate. On the other hand, it's consistent with other titles such as List of tallest structures in London, it's not so wrong (nobody's really going to tell La Défense isn't Paris, even if it's true, in an administrative point of view). Blame it on the borders of french communes, which don't tell anything about parisian urbanism any more...
You know, I agree that the French commune system is backwards, but we can't bypass it in ignoring it or inventing names that don't exist ; ) "London" enjoys a status that Paris doesn't, that is to say that everything within "Greater London" is commonly known and referenced as "London" by people, reference and government. So if we were going to take the names of one of the towers in the "Tallest structures in London" article and do a google with 'London', or look at a reference book for 'towers in london' we are likely to find it directly, but if we were to do the same with suburban tower from "Tallest structures in Paris" and looked for it in anything "Paris" we would have much less chance of finding it. It is for this - other references - that we must remain true to existing conventions and other references - get me? If it is not true to reference then there is some sort of ulterior opinion or motive at work here, but what that motivation is is really of no concern to me or Wiki.
BTW, I wrote you here because you seem to be more active in the French pages - we can carry this on in the English Wiki - or on the article page itself! My initial letter just began with this question of authorship - but forgive me for digressing : ) Cheers. THEPROMENADER08:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've got no idea what the ideal title should be. Maybe we should broaden this by asking more people, but I don't know how to do so in the english Wikipedia. — Poulpy 30 juin 2006 à 11:25 (CEST)
Like everything in this discussion, I fall back on fact. I did a little googling this morning to see what the official organisations use for an English-language description of Paris and its suburbs, and for these it is "Paris Region" hands-down. "Paris area" in a worldwide search comes slightly ahead, but these resutlts contain much of a more touristic and "popular" nature - for me it's pretty straightforward, but if you'd like to put in a word I'd much appreciate it. If all else fails I'll be taking the government choice - anything is better than this article's present namespace, as as it is, it is just an untruth that, to anyone with knowledge above complete ignorance on the subject, makes Wiki look silly indeed. I don't think Wiki's goal is to give the ignorant what they "already know" : ) So let's call things as they are now so others won't need to find out otherwise later. Much appreciated. THEPROMENADER09:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I certainly will drop in sometime later. Paris and France have always enchanted me. I couldn't find a guideline for French cities, so perhaps you could use this as an alternative. Try to stick to the length prescribed for each section, so the overall page does not go above wikipedia's prescribed limits. The Paris page is currently 82 kbs — almost double the permissible length. So you have some serious trimming to do. -- thunderboltza.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK10:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again stupid ecclesiastical histories
Despite having been many times warned that consensus was to have separate ecclesiastical history articles, our User:Fastifex is continuing to add such 1911 or Catholic Enc. shit within the entries of cities throughout all Europe. Please send him a line, if you want, and perhaps check sometimes his contributions if you have time in the next months, as I'll be without Internet until September. Ciaoooo and good work!--Attilios12:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Paris gap
Yea there was about a 6 inch gap between the beginning of the article (the table of contents) and the first line. This was caused by the infobox. So, what I did was just move the image of the Eiffel tower to the Climate section, which may be somewhat inappropriate, but I don't think its a problem.
Also, yes I am using IE. When you go back to the version before mine, is there a gap on your browser? Perhaps its just mine, although I don't have any reason to believe that mine is not standard. Regards, AdamBiswanger117:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the reference you reverted was not a proper one, it had the appearance of a novel synthesis from multiple sources. However, you should not revert-war. Although the anon should not either... Anyway, you were reported at WP:AN/3RR and you might like to comment there. Just zis Guy you know?11:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've just left my third and last message on the referral Hardouin has cast upon you, which will be my last in this incident as I am once again faced with a brick wall. Very much like squash or ping-pong backatcha. I believe I have made my point to onlookers and to anyone who wishes to participate and understand the ridicule of the situation which does justify me involving myself more on this matter. I hope I've done well, good weekend to you. Captain Scarletand the Mysterons13:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Greetings from Paris
I also appologize if I seemed too rude, but maybe it is because I am not a native Parisian. I sort of see where you're coming from, but I don't understand how Paris would not have somewhat of a metropolitan area. Anyhow, I know you live in Paris and know more about it than I do, so I'd like to leave this matter to people who know more about the city...like you and User:Metropolitan.
The reason why it seems much ado about nothing to me is that I've never heard of someone suing someone for infringement over something like this. Sure, you can copyright architectural works under US law (i.e. if I were the designer of a famous building, I could claim copyright over its design), but that would only mean that someone who made another building with a similar design would be infringing. It would not give me the ability to sue anyone who took a picture of the building. Similarly if I copyrighted the design of a desk lamp, I could sue others who made similar looking desk lamps. But I couldn't prevent people from using the desk lamp as a subject of a photograph — the photograph is itself a totally different and creative work of expression. Similarly I imagine if someone copyrighted a lighting scheme (not improbable), they could then sue someone who duplicated the lighting scheme for their own monument. However the idea that such a copyright would extend to the point where all representations of the lighting scheme would be copyrighted is completely without any example in US copyright law.
I don't know French copyright law at all, perhaps it is different. But for the purposes of Wikipedia, the idea that a company could claim copyright over an independently taken photograph of the Eiffel tower at night is without merit. If that were the case then we could never feature photographs of buildings at all. --Fastfission21:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This interpretation is entirely false. The light display is copyrighted, and as such it cannot be reproduced commercially for any purpose without express written consent of the SNTE. This isn't a guideline that can be discarded simply because some people don't like it or think it improbable. -- Moondigger01:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If a copyright in one country doesn't apply in another where the work is published, then for the publications's consideration there is no copyright. This is what has been stated above, and the question being actively researched now. Does this copyright concern Wiki? If so, exactly how? There is no guideline for this sort of circumstance as far as I can find - but perhaps you know better? If so, please show me what I've missed. THEPROMENADER17:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are right! It seems as if somrbody just assumed that Arturo's father was a mestizo and added the term. I removed it. A lot of people are totally unaware of the German influence in the Caribbean, that's why I wrote the following article: German immigration to Puerto Rico. I hope that you see it and enjoy it. Tony the Marine16:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Marshall Poe
Hi, Thanks for the link - interesting article all right. I'd totally forgotten about him, now amn't I glad I didn't give the article a resounding delete! Dlyons493Talk20:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The County of London is clearly what is meant by London before 1965. Before 1889 there was certainly no such thing as "London" besides the City of London, but the County was at least as much "London" as the "Greater London" entity is today (see 1911 Britannica, for instance, which basically defines London as the County of London). From 1986-2000 Greater London certainly still existed. (At the very least it was a ceremonial county, just as Berkshire, Greater Manchester, and Merseyside are today). john k12:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In general I think official designations are best. But official designations is not necessarily the same thing as administrative subdivisions. Note that the city of London has always been considered to be much bigger than the City of London. john k15:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ThePromenader. I've noticed you involvement with templates regarding départements. I am shocked to notice that département préfetures do not have a préfecture template but a région capital one. What do you suggest with regards to replacing the région capital template by the préfecture one ? Captain Scarletand the Mysterons09:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Great work! I only had a couple of minor corrections (about dalles, I didn't mean "sidewalks" but fr:Urbanisme sur dalle, for which I know no English equivalent). Thanks for translating the article. Thbz20:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it's already been done, it's already been done. I'm not really sure what more can be done. Might be best just to cut losses and retreat. It doesn't seem like anyone is budging, and it's not the biggest deal ever. Unfortunate, but sometimes necessary, for sanity's sake if nothing else. john k00:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Time to archive - it took me two minutes to find your message.
Frankly I haven't a clue how the vote will go - I've rather set the game against a move by contacting everyone (save sock-puppets) who ever had anything to say in the affair - once again, I'm quite naively hoping that reason and fact will win out here. I'm frankly appalled at a few who would rather play "social issues" than lose face/show ignorance - this isn't at all the point of Wiki; it's what goes into the page that counts. I'm also surprised that some knowing perfectly well the facts would deny that they do/pretend that they don't. English Wiki seems to have become a playground for a few dissatisfied with reality - the Paris/suburb issue is a 'touchy' one, but the largesse taken on English wiki would never be even dared on French Wikipedia, and it is only foreign ignorance that makes this largesse possible.
Unlike the case of Paris for which "Greater Paris" has no real meaning, I don't think "Melbourne" has any meaning distinct from "Greater Melbourne". There's the "City of Melbourne", but that's truely just an administrative division of no importance whatsoever - many people don't even know which one they live in. I imagine that the definition of "Melbourne" basically includes all neighbouring suburbs, and excludes any separated by space. As you can see by List of Melbourne suburbs, there's a lot of them ;) This might also give you an idea: [2]. It really is a huge place...
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. HawkerTyphoon00:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You very clearly violated 3RR. For some reason, you weren't blocked along with Hardouin, but I will rectify the situation. When you come back from your block, be sure not to make the same sort of reverts that got you blocked in the first place. --Deathphoenixʕ16:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regions/Departments
a région is an undeniable administrative step up from a département
You're right, of course -- I hadn't realised the regions' powers/authorities had evolved so much since I stopped being a close observer of French affairs (long time ago, probably not that long after their creation). But thanks for putting that niggle aside and seeing the deeper problem. The counties of England would be another utter mess, too, while the Regions of England are not terribly useful. Best, Sgt Pinback14:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unblock request
{{unblock|I most certainly did not break the [[WP:3RR]] rule. I don't know who or what managed to convince you of this, but I suggest that you read the [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#User:Hardouin_reported_by_User:ThePromenader_.28Result:48_hours.29|3RR complaint page]] and [[User_talk:Hardouin#3RR_Violation.2FBlock|Hardouin's talk page]]. You will clearly see that the ''edit'' I made was discussed one week before and I had left the article for that entire time before making it. Suggesting that this edit was a 'revert' is deception. Please look into this further, as this is grossly unfair.}}
Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reasons:
Argh, you are correct, the first "revert" was an edit, and the following three were reverts. Therefore, you only reverted three times. Of course, getting that close to a 3RR violation isn't a good idea by any means, but I am mistaken in stating that you actually violated the policy.
Look, take a night of sleep and stop brooding on my edits. Anger and resentment is gonna eat you from within. It's not healthy. Also, I took advantage of having my account blocked thanks to you to send emails to many admins, and you're being watched now, at least that's what some of them promised me. So I'd suggest you discuss things before reverting me. And I'd also suggest you consider trust instead of constant mistrust. Several admins whom I exchanged emails with told me they have no sympathy for you. Your constant accusations of bad faith are probably not helping your case. As for the provost of the merchants, read commune in France for more information. A good book about the French Revolution will also do. The National Assembly initially set itself the task of writing a Constitution for the country, but nothing more. It is only because all institutions crumbled and vanished after the storming of the Bastille and the disbanding of the Paris municipality that they had to legislate and create new institutions (communes, new courts, etc.). If I have to fill an entire talk page of explanation each time I edit the Paris article, just because you mistrust whatever I say, then editing is impossible. Funny how when other people edit the Paris article you don't ask such amount or details, and you don't doubt their edits the way you doubt mine. The admins I talked to were quite clear about that. Hardouin00:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are the one reverting, so you yourself should provide the evidence before you revert. Telling me "where to read" is not this. Again you are imposing an event that, only a sliver of importance in the creation of Paris' (France's) municipal commune system, would appear to be the entire cause. This does not take an entire talk page to "explain". Even the commune in France article (written largely by yourself - and quite a quite good piece of work I must add) shows that the commune was a next step to the office of provost's abolishment, not the shooting of the Provost himself.
Watch me for what? Those must have been some pretty interesting mails, and sent not to just anyone I'm sure. I'll count on the judgement of all concerned to look at facts and page histories for reality. The originality in much of what you write, and your vehemence in ensuring that it stay exactly as you wrote it, speaks of more personal ends and promoting personal theories than sharing information - this is quite obvious to anyone knowing anything about the subjects in which we contribute. Unfortunately there are few 'in the know', which is why, for lack of consensus, you are able to make life so difficult for other contributors trying to make an article resemble more reference than a single wikipedian's opinion. This is not a gang war, there is no 'sides', and there is no 'property' - it is the integrity of the written word that has the final say, and that's it. Work to this end and you'll have no reason for conflict with anyone. THEPROMENADER00:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I've noticed you've had messages erased of others' talk pages. As you know it is considered bad form to ignore others users and as such it is advisable to report the user on the grounds of non-cooperation. Since there is a history of this happening, decisions might be taken towards forcing the user to work alongside other users on projects. Captain Scarletand the Mysterons12:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Promenader, I suggest you read the guidelines at Help:Talk page. In particular, read this: "Actively erasing non-harassing personal messages without replying (if a reply would be appropriate or polite) will probably be interpreted as hostile. [...] However, reverting such removals [...] is not proper and may result in a block for edit warring." Your messages, with their insinuations and harsh tone, are a clear case of harassing personal messages. Furthermore, you didn't ask any question, your messages consisted essentially in saying you disagree with me and you think I act in bad faith. This calls for no reply, and I am perfectly entitled to erase them. Also note that reverting removals may result in your account being blocked as stated by the policy. Finally, be aware that I copied and saved the messages you two exchanged about me. No doubt your conspiring and hostile tone ("the other") will be appreciated by admins. Hardouin15:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't mind, I'd rather look at the rules objectively, as I don't need to bend nor 'interpret' them to make a case against you. Your accustions are grave, and the below is an answer to them. The accusation that I am a stalker and reverter made by the very person responsible for such behaviour is a bit much - of course my tone is harsh. What's more, I don't see the point in all this fuss - you seem to want to get me banned. I don't think you will be able to on insunations and false accusations only. THEPROMENADER15:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have a present for you. I've been scrutinising Hardouin's talk page to incidently check what I had accused him of: blanking and ignoring any remark made against him. [3][4] and [5], the rest is as they say, history. Enjoy, have a good weekend, Captain Scarletand the Mysterons16:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I cannot sort out the competing claims of the anons. I am inclined to support any logged-in user who will make a coherent case why it should be one way or the other. If you know something about the subject, I say pick one and go with it, or mention both, as you think best. There is no reason for the page to be batted back and forth like it has been. Tom HarrisonTalk15:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your sock-puppetry
You don't think I am stupid enough not to have noticed your little sock-puppetry at Talk:List of tallest buildings and structures in Paris, do you? The supposedly Parisian-born guy has an IP address strikingly similar to yours. The language also looks strikingly like yours. That IP address has no history of editing on Wikipedia, except to make this single comment on the talk page. And for a native Frenchman, what an impeccable English without a single grammatical error. Even the use of "there" instead of "here" betrays that this is not a Parisian-born person. It's funny that you accuse me of doing sock-pupettry, when you're actually the one resorting to sock-puppetry. In any case, I keep a record of this on my computer, and will keep it handy to show to admins should you make unfounded accusations against me in the future. Hardouin17:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course his IP is similar to mine (wondering by what obsession you got my IP) - we both live in Paris it seems. You are a sock-puppet user, your accusations are inventive, unfounded, false and lame and your 'admin' threats are pathetic. I've still nothing to hide, but I've never seen you any lower, dear. And frankly no, your "fact with a dash of originality from a would-be superior mind" campaign will not be left alone on any page where I'm editing - I probably won't even know it's your text I am editing, and you can't expect me to check. Stick to reference and you'll have no problem from me. THEPROMENADER21:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the post Hardouin removed (not the one CS was indicating) he was just using a former "fault" as a cover for a later action - very common behaviour for this contributor - but in the acutal "f*ck" message, at least I was polite enough to * out the complete word. I'm sure you can understand my anger - being publicly accused - twice - of being a sock-puppet, by a sock-puppet. I have grown very tired of these 'turnaround' accusations. I did not replace that message, but I did save it in my removed messages archive. THEPROMENADER17:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Such accusations are counter productive and only heighten the tension between you too. The same is true of some of your posts on his talk page. I just remembered noticing the edit last night and figured it was the one H was referring to. Finally, one should be able to remove whatever one wants from one's one talk page for whatever reason - as you've shown - you can always quote the diff to show what you said. Returning to my lurking role :) --Trödel19:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I had only intended to make a tweak or two to help out, but if you are on a "uniforimity" mission of course I can pitch in. I'll follow your lead. THEPROMENADER07:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for spamming your talk page, but since you had contributed in the past to the WP:NC(GN) proposal, which is currently ready for a wider consultation, I thought you might want to give it another look now and, hopefully, suggest some final improvements. Thanks. --Lysytalk22:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, and thanks for your message - but how can I contribute? I could make a suggestion for sure - but let me think about it first, and look around at what most other references do : ) THEPROMENADER23:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's always the case! I'm in the process of suffering a series of "too few editors" article immaturity myself. I've already a thought, and I'll be by for sure. THEPROMENADER23:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here in Wikipedia there are hundreds of wikipedians whose work and efforts go unappreciated. One occasionally comes across editors who have thousands of good edits, but because they may not get around as much as others, their contributions and hard work often go unnoticed. As Esperanzians we can help to make people feel appreciated, be it by some kind words or the awarding of a Barnstar. This is where the Barnstar Brigade comes in. The object of this program is to seek out the people which deserve a Barnstar, and help them feel appreciated. With your help, we can recognize more dedicated editors!
What's New?
September elections are upon us! Anyone wishing to be a part of the Advisory Council may list themselves as a candidate from 18 September until 24 September, with the voting taking place from 25 September to 30 September. Those who wish to help with the election staff should also list themselves!
Appreciation Week, a program currently in development, now has its own subpage! Share your good ideas on how to make it awesome there!
The Esperanza front page has been redesigned! Many thanks to all who worked hard on it.
Many thanks to MiszaBot, courtesy of Misza13, for delivering the newsletter.
The September 2006 Council elections will open for nominations on 18 September 2006. The voting will run from 25 September 2006 until 30 September 2006. If you wish to be a candidate or a member of the elections staff, please list yourself!
The new Esperanza front page design has but put up - many thanks to all who worked on it!
TangoTango has written a script for a bot that will list new members of Esperanza, which will help those who welcome new Esperanzains greatly!
Although having the newsletter appear on everyone's userpage is desired, this may not be ideal for everyone. If, in the future, you wish to receive a link to the newsletter, rather than the newsletter itself, you may add yourself to Wikipedia:Esperanza/Newsletter/Opt Out List.
Unless the law has changed (which I don't think it has), the departement isn't called Ville de Paris. Indeed, I did a little checking and found the loi 75-1331 31 decembre 1975 which states my point nicely. Hardouin is increasingly becoming desperate in his attempts to claw back any dignity. I have left another message here as I think this is yet another example of your growing RfC which I do hope you bring soonest rather than later as Hardouin does seem to have some WP:OWN issues that need to be snipped at the bud. --Bob22:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, Hardouin's arguments are to the sole purpose of defending his reverts/edits, as usual. WP:OWN: good lord what good it does to hear someone outside of myself state that. Snipped at the bud, yes, but the contributor in question has been profiting from a general English-wiki ignorance and building a world of his own concoction here since more than a year now, and few have been knowledgeable enough - or had the cojones or stamina enough - to counter it. Clawing pretty well describes what any contestation comes down to. Do take care to criticise only the fact, as any 'personal' mixed in just gives him arguments (aka "reasons to complain") against you and makes any discussion last, well, forever.
Okay, I'll work on getting the RfC online, Captain scarlet wants to have a go at it too. It's a multi-page simpletext mess for now, but I'll start making coherent lists or something. You won't believe your eyes. Too bad it has to come to this though - I'd rather be editing. THEPROMENADER22:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Disputes
Given the current discussion on the mediation that you opened, I think that making those changes in various articles could violate WP:POINT. However, I am glad to see that a compromise is developing that clearly identifies that it is part of "greater paris" but not in paris "proper" - boy it would be easier if Parisienne's (and the citizens of the appropriate sections of the Île-de-France) would just establish a Regional Municipality, for all that area ;).
I am however, disappointed that the volume of information seems to have overwelmed the mediator - perhaps you could refactor your comments into a few bullet points so that he could understand the situation better - and others do the same. Then trust that the mediator will be intelligent enough to read it all critically and not need to see a counterpoint on everything. my 2 cents --Trödel23:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do see what you mean - but these are not logos, and are only near-copies of metro line colour/numbers I made from an existing plan. Even if they were logos, we could still use them if they are tagged with the {{logo}} template. Perhaps it would be wise to do this all the same - if only to waylay any similar questions. Cheers. THEPROMENADER20:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ThePromenader, can you provide a source for the above image? The license you've included states it is your own work line-art inspired by contemporary metro plans. It appears to be severely inspired if not copied from enamel signs found in the Paris Region. Can you supply documentation of original work so that no one can accuse you of stealing intellectual property? Cheers, Captain Scarletand the Mysterons23:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, captain. I did in fact copy the artwork myself, but from a .pdf plan available online. The train symbol is not a logo, and there was no copyright notice at all - but I do see your point about the "design" side of it. Since we are using it in context, that is to say for metro articles, I would think this would qualify for free use should we have to tag that claim. If there is some better alternative way to mark this, please let me know, or please change it yourself. Must run now, first show is at 9:30 today : ) THEPROMENADER06:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know there is no clear copyright information but knowing both the RATP nd SNCF, there is (they aren't a bunch of jackasses for nowt). The problem is that if this image qualifies as fair use, it can't be used in templates. My worry is that since it is their logo design, the image is probably copyrighted and therefore qualifies as fair use. Captain Scarletand the Mysterons08:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"The problem is that if this image qualifies as fair use, it can't be used in templates. "
Really? I was not aware of this. If the need be, replace it with something else and have it speedily removed. I have never seen the "free use ≠ in template" rule - rather free use must be used in "in context" articles - and the articles where the template is used are all on Paris' metro, non? I'll leave thiis up to you to do what you think is safest. If anyone cares, that is : ) THEPROMENADER19:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When i irst started creating templates, user templates in fact, i was confronted with the rule. I'll be honnest and tell you it was six months ago when it happened and so it's probably nested womewhere in Help: or Wikipedia: pages. If we/you/I want to be safe, it is better to use universal symbols (like the railway crossing road sign) or pure own work images. I won't speedily delete it as it causes no harm and I'll be honnest, the RATP makes enough money from the taxpayer. On the other hand I just recon it is safer to remove the logo (which I have recognised from a photo I took from an indescriminate métro station) and replace it with a public domain or one of our own work.
Okay, up to you sir! There's tons of ways to get "around" this - for one, you could simply reverse it (ether direction or colour - white on blue, eg), or two, make a a slightly different logo (truely "inspired" from the original, not copied as I have done) on the same theme. Two minutes work once everything's set up - but it's the setting up that I won't have time for till after the weekend : ) Ciao, bello. THEPROMENADER06:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, u revert a modification i do on my own work without explaining your action. Can you, please explain to me your resons ? Is it the style you revert ? Is it the content ?
I'm not sure what you are speaking about - where did I revert your work? I see nothing in the map page history. Can you point me to where this happened? Thankss, and apologies all the same.
(scratching head) I don't understand why I would revert the plan to an earlier version - I wasn't even using it for anything! An error perhaps? Please feel free to negate my alterations. Apologies. THEPROMENADER19:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Taichung City
I am new on WikiProject Cities. I have added considerable content to the first city I am working on, which happens to be the city of my residence, Taichung City. Would you mind taking a few minutes to look it over and leave comments on how you think I can make it better to bring it up to WikiProject Cities standards in a section of the discussion page for the city’s article page that I have set up.
OK, I should be more "Wikilover", but with users like Fastifex definitions are scarce. I don't know if I already asked for your help with him, anyway I noticed you have already called him to order in his talk page, so here I am again. The reason? He is steadily pouring stupid, out-of-date infos from early 20th century encylopedias regarding ecclesiastical matters, without any attempt to update them, without any minimal idea of what a serious encyclopedia could contain (ie, what's the meaning of provide early 20th century statistics without the current one?). His addition are full of typos, moreover, I doubt he he ever reads what he adds. I'm truly wordless with such a guy. OK, bye and thanks and good work! --Attilios15:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've posted a request for help here. Maybe you can help. Maybe there are other places I could ask help? Can you attract the attention of other serious users about this man? My true desire is that we could even ban forever this stupid guy from here... It's much the time serious users need to revert his shit than the useful contributions he adds. "Contributions" is maybe too stron word. "Paste-and-copy" would be better. What I ask myself is: WHY this guy is here? He seems to have NEVER read a serious encyclopedia before, he seem to do not know anything apart some Catholic mess, what's the attraction he feels to stay here? Why he does not go to some Wikia about Star Trek or other such stuff? GRRR!!!! --Attilios15:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC) (PS: fine signature!)[reply]
Help is welcome, I'm tired to spend all my time to revert and correct the stupid edits of that stupid guy. Thanks and good work! --Attilios09:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just had a look - it's protected, so even if there is a solution, an admin is needed to implement it. The only "quick n' dirty" solution I can think of is wrapping the offending template in a <div style="width:100%;clear:both;margin:0 auto;">{{template:bawooka}}</div> (minus the "bawooka" of course). THEPROMENADER18:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One last question: whitespace where? To the left or right, or above and below? I somehow get the impression that you are not seeing the same thing as I. Could you post a screenshot of the problem? THEPROMENADER10:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Major French city template
Hi there
I was wondering how the pointer map that you introduced into the above template could be made optional. Not that I wwant to make it optional in that template, but so that it could be introduced into the French commune infobox. Cheers in advance. --Bob00:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the "EU" addition is a very progressive idea... sure, why not?
if you would like to render the "pointer" map optional, hide the whole behind an "if" statement (one of the x or y coordinates should do the trick). That way, if there are no coordinates set, the map won't appear. Useful, even. THEPROMENADER08:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try that, thanks. Personally, I don't think EU should be listed under country, as it is not a country... --Bob15:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Admin Coaching needs coaches!!! If you are an administrator, or even a generally experienced user, do consider signing up to be a coach.
Admin Coaching, now being coordinated by HighwayCello, is a program for people who want help learning some of the more subtle aspects of Wikipedia policy and culture. People are matched with experienced users who are willing to offer coaching. The program is designed for people who have figured out the basics of editing articles; they're not newcomers any more, but they might want some help in learning new roles. In this way, Esperanza would help keep hope alive for Wikipedia because we would always be grooming the next generation of admins.
What's New?
The Tutorial Drive is a new Esperanza program! In an effort to make complicated processes on Wikipedia easier for everyone, Esperanza working to create and compile a list of tutorials about processes here on Wikipedia. Consider writing one!
A discussion on how Esperanza relates to the encyclopedia has been started; please add your thoughts.
Many thanks to MiszaBot, courtesy of Misza13, for delivering the newsletter.
The list of proposed programs has been updated, with some proposals being archived.
There is now a new program: the Tutorial Drive! Consider writing a tutorial on something you are good at doing on Wikipedia.
The suggestion of adding a cohesive look to all the Esperanza pages is being considered; join the discussion if you are interested!
In order to make a useful interlanguage welcome template, those involved in translation projects will be asked what English Wikipedia policies are most important and confusing to editors coming from other language Wikipedias.
Shreshth91 informed everyone that he will be leaving the Esperanza council as life is rather busy; his spot will be filled by the runner up from the last election, HighwayCello.
Although having the newsletter appear on everyone's userpage is desired, this may not be ideal for everyone. If, in the future, you wish to receive a link to the newsletter, rather than the newsletter itself, you may add yourself to Wikipedia:Esperanza/Newsletter/Opt Out List.
Really? Didn't notice. Wholesale reverting does get to me. Did you know that a revert even in part (returning a single phrase to its former state, example) is a revert as well - do you count these in your "two" reverts? Administrators don't care about semantics. Anyhow, Metropolitan is up to four now. I did what I could to maintain the improvements when I saw they were reverted, but I will go no further - I won't transcend the WP:3RR rule. Best stick to the rules - and those who break them deserve to be reported banned. Even myself if the need be. THEPROMENADER19:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong, I haven't reverted it four times, I've reverted five times. And I'll revert it a sixth times if you continue to deny the fact that Nanterre is a suburb of Paris. I have already explained the reasons of my edits in the talk page, and I'm fully ready to assume them, as they are fair, accurate and concise. There's no room for compromise in the fact that Nanterre is a suburb of Paris and it is the most important information about that city, as it wouldn't even be the prefecture of the Hauts-de-Seine if Paris wouldn't exist. The Hauts-de-Seine as a whole wouldn't even exist. Metropolitan20:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Your behaviour is not what one could call reasonable, User:Metropolitan. One does not revert entire passages of contributions over one word. By the way, the word you so wanted has been reinstated - by myself. Good day. THEPROMENADER20:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think the DAB shold link to redirects. As Serge has proposed, all of the existing comma convention (hereafter: CC) pages should be moved as appropriate with CC-titled redirects left in their stead. And as I am responding here, I see your logic in agreeing on the concept first. You've been able to make the case more reasonably than Serge. I shall not speculate (here, anyway) on the reasons why. --ishu16:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having quite a bit of difficulty making an "objective point of view" case there, and this seems mostly to be because of the WP:NC:CITY discussion's seemingly long history - there seems to have developed almost a cast of characters with fixed roles to play. Serge seems to be using any argument at all - existing methods, consensus, rules, other contributor opinions/actions and such - instead of pure reason to support his point of view, to a point where that "stance" has become a not always reasonable line of defense... which tends to make other contributors take "sides" which is in turn of course damaging to any debate - even later debate. I'm beginning to see this clearly now. THEPROMENADER17:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
May I ask you to clarify whether you agree or disagree with the following: Assuming a no exceptions comma convention, City,State would constitute the "proper name" apart from the disambiguation. Your "Discernible Disambiguation" proposal seemed to be agnostic, but your more recent comments are a bit more ambiguous, perhaps because I believe you would oppose a no-exceptions comma convention--which would make this a "false choice". As my comments may indicate, I have sympathies for several "camps" in this discussion; most of all, I'd just like to have a policy/convention/guideline that is coherent. Anyway, thanks for your contributions. --ishu15:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! Thanks for your thanks, for I was beginning to have severe doubts about that (cough) little discussion. I don't think I was at all ambiguous - au contraire, même - but I will try to clarify myself on the relevent talk page. Cheers. THEPROMENADER17:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
JS reviewer
Hello ThePromenader, I just edited your monobook.js to replace the coding from the PR script with {{js}}. This allows for me to keep track of who is using the PR script and to let you use the most recently updated revision of the script (well, at least since the last WP:BYC). Thanks, AZt02:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At least since I started using computers in the late 70s, the word "brackets" has always referred to square brackets -- []. There are also curly braces -- {} -- and parenthesis -- (). I believe you are using the term brackets to refer to parenthesis which is a bit confusing, at least to me. --Serge18:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've just asked a question on the Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions (geographic names) page about the choice between Mumbai and Bombay for your article - how did you come about the decision to name the article Mumbai, when a majority of Wikipidians would impose Bombay, as it is the "most-known" name to the majority of English Wikipedians?
This is just a neutral question out of a discussion about creating a geographical naming convention. Your experience in the matter would, I'm sure, be much appreciated.
Ah, this has been discussed and debated on Talk:Calcutta and the conclusion was to keep with the new official names of the cities renamed. One of the basic resons was that the failure to update one's knowledge on the name change was not an excuse to say that it was the 'common name'. Regards, =Nichalp«Talk»=06:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unspecified source for Image:La-Defense-is-not-part-of-P.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:La-Defense-is-not-part-of-P.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Nv8200ptalk14:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the arbitration page is still in the archives. Perhaps keep it for memory's sake, just in case any of that mess should resurface one day. THEPROMENADER09:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Once I find them, I can upload them all to Commons, no problem. I should have done that in the first place. Too bad there's no "transfer" function for that sort of move... THEPROMENADER21:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you : ) It was no small feat, to tell you the truth - it is a superimposition of three plans; one showing shaded topography, one showing hydrology overlain with an administrative plan. Part of what makes a map "easy to read" is the choice of colours - that took some playing around and a few false starts. THEPROMENADER19:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Image move to commons - Paris metro
Actually, I didn't move them. I just nominated them to be moved. If you want to "move" them yourself you can, or just wait and eventually it will get moved, though I don't know how long these things take. This is my first "move to commons" tagging so I'm curious about the process myself. If you do move them to commons by uploading the images to commons and not transwiki'ing it, be sure to label the images that they are now on commons so we can delete them here. Thanks. --MECU≈talk18:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you would like to tag all of the other "metro" line images, please do - you can find them all in the "Paris metro" template existing on every article on Paris' metro lines. Thanks again and cheers! THEPROMENADER20:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...just stumbling up on your page... and saw you liked la p'tite ceinture... so you might enjoy a look into Saint-Ouen's industrial zone, just up-north — before they make some grazeyard to play football out there, with some HLMs to keep the peace out there!... Salut, et bonne promenade! Lapaz
Hey, thanks for the interesting tip. You know, I spent a LOT of time there in the early 1990's - loved the industrial abandon, especially the train yards - and it really would be a good idea to go up there again. Thanks for the reminder! THEPROMENADER12:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Using English
Hello - I'm contacting you because of your involvement with using English instead of foreign terms in articles. A few are trying to "Anglicise" French terms in Wiki articles according to current guidelines but there is some resistance (eg/: "Région => Region"; "Département => Departement"). Your input would be appreciated here. Thankyou. --Bob16:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very funny : ) Actually, a few are justifiying their "Anglicising" articles on a quite liberal interpretation of current guidelines : ) THEPROMENADER16:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings, Promenader. In all seriousness, please let me know when to vote, should you continue to monitor this discussion. I think the Anglicisers are misguided, but I've learned my lesson about limiting my involvement. Besides, you know French much better than I do. Cheers, Ishu22:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No need for modesty: thank you for your involvement; your points were quite well-placed and valid. I think the Anglicisers have good intentions, and perhaps don't see the complications their actions would create for those reading "out of the box" (away from the subject, or without the context of our discussion) - it's sometimes hard to be objective when already heading in a fixed direction. I suppose there will be a vote on it (I had no intention to start one), but perhaps it would be useful to come to that... I hope discussion is enough. Anhow, thanks for the message and cheers. THEPROMENADER22:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads up. I've already mentioned something on that thread, but will do some some more this evening. Thanks for the reminder. — OwenBlacker14:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem - I saw your name on the list, in addition to the kindness of another contributor alerting me to your major role in France-related articles. I find it odd that those who actually wrote the articles have not been contacted for comment - completing this would be helpful as well. Your input will be just a start I hope. Thanks! --THEPROMENADER16:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Name screwup
Hello - I indeed mistook you for another. I've answered you in kind on the Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_France page - and added a tad in the bargain.
This isn't something that I have worked on, or at least its not something I remember working on (and it doesn't sound like the sort of thing I have worked on). So, unfortunately for me, the praise belongs elsewhere. --MarkS (talk) 21:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Paris logo transilien jms.svg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Paris logo transilien jms.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot23:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What was wrong with those pics ?
Hi, what was wrong with those two pics in the Paris article that you removed them?
I thought that was a good addition as there were no photos of those areas in the article.
I understand that you perhaps worked hard to make those photos, but not only were those photos in a wrong place, they were of subject matter already represented elsewhere in the article. If you would like people to use your photos, I suggest you put a gallery in your personal page and link it to every photo you upload to commons - that way people can find them and use them. Bonne continuation, and cheers! THEPROMENADER14:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS: In looking at your contributions list, it seems that all you have done on Wiki is publish your own pictures with links to your own website. Wiki is not for promotional purposes - the photo should serve the subject; not the other way around. You are a good photographer, but the subjects of your images have already been covered in the article. I would find one image placed in its topic to be acceptable, but the only thought given to the photo placement in this case is to the level of attention the placement will get (up top). Don't do this please - I trust you will repair this yourself. THEPROMENADER14:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand your statements, but i do think those images could be useful in the article.
- Perhaps instead of removing those pictures without a note you could move them to another place in the article or put in a in-article gallery, i think wikipedia viewers would like to see more pictures and illustrations in articles and i don't think there's anything wrong with placing many of them in an article
- It is right i'm not much of a writer and i mostly added photos in wikipedia articles, but i certainly did not did that to promote my website, i did that to contribute visual content to wikipedia, and i don't think there is anything wrong with putting a small credit remark on my photos, its good to be able to see a picture in wikipedia and know who took it.
- but mainly the reason i added those images to the Paris article is because, as a wikipedia viewer i thought it lacks visual content and those images can do nothing but contribute.
I'm sorry, the evident reason you are adding all your own photos - with link - is for self promotion! I am not deciding anything, I am saying that this is quite obvious. All the same, I see nothing wrong with you keeping one picture, but please put it in a more appropriate spot than "the history of Paris" - which neither of your photos represent. For the rest, never mind me - I only maintain concern where I contribute. Like I said, if you make a gallery and link your images to it, others will find and use them without you having the "bad face" of obliging them upon articles yourself. Cheers. THEPROMENADER17:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pick your Latin brain...
My Wheelock's only goes so far, and I'm not even what you call a dilettante in the language. I was merely curious as to whether there is a verb in Latin meaning "to will", like "to will something into existence". Thank you. --SigPig |SEND - OVER16:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Anglicisation of French administrative terms
Yeah, vandalism is a pain, but according to the Wikipedia:Protection policy, permanent protection of any article (other than the main page) is permissible only in extremely rare cases. Long-term protection shouldn't be a normal solution for vandalism. We've now semi-protected George W. Bush more or less permanently, but that article was vandalised at least once every 20 seconds. I don't think Paris is quite so no notorious a target of vandalism, but if there are more bursts of IP vandalism, you can request a temporary semi-protection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection.
Check out WP:RCP for some tools that may make it easier for you to revert, warn and report vandals on Wikipedia without resorting to page protection.
I puted this morning a link to "parisdigest.com" (not mine, but of someone I know) because I thought that it's not only a "farm link" and it might be usefull. I understand your position, but could you check again the website ?
For more informations, I "work" on "fr wikipédia" (http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Schwarzer_Stern )
Please don't consider this message as unpolite, I only write a bad english :)
Best regards
External links are a touchy affair. Any site whose first role is the promotion of a service or product is usually eliminated, as if one is accepted there is no stopping them. Accepted sites must be a resource of generalistic information or documents relative to the generalistic Paris article - even links to 'particular' sites are moved to more particular articles. Thanks for your understanding. THEPROMENADER01:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, no problem :)
Paris work towards FA
(also added to peer review page)
Hello ThePromenader. Rather than go through the article and make a bit of a mess of it, what I've done is detail where I believe the FA crowd will expect to see citations in this sandbox: User:Zleitzen/Paris sandbox. My flags have not been an exact science - but it should give an idea of what is required. It may look daunting, but sections like the history section could be covered by only 2-3 main sources, preferably reputable historical book sources, with other points patched together with web citations. Some of the flags may seem so obvious as to not need citations, and much of it I knew to be easily verifiable. However, they'll still need to be visibly cited to escape the FA hawks. It's an exceptionally well written article by wikipedia's standards - I added strike-throughs to only 2-3 sentences, these I believed were a touch too personal and bordering on original research. However, I do think the article is too long to pass FA at its current length. The education section in particular could be farmed out to a sub article leaving a paragraph or so remaining.
Returning to the refs, here's a section I wrote for the otherwise poorly sourced History of Cuba page which I believe is the frequency of refs required by the FA watchers. Notice that I only use 2 sources for the section, however they are evenly spread (and, of course, could be verified if need be - no cheating from me!). --Zleitzen(talk)05:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a million! I will have a look right away. Cheers! THEPROMENADER
Per your comment on this image's IFD nomination, "I don't see how "uploader absent" has anything to do with a photo's presence or not on Wikipedia: once an image is uploaded, it's Wikepdia's image." The following is my rational for making the notation about the uploader's absence. "The reason, atleast for my reasoning, is that if the uploader is absent (judged solely by last edits) then the likelyhood of the uploader participating in the discussion is greatly reduced." --User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr)14:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This was one of the most disgusting edits I've witnessed. An editor makes his first edit in 8 months, in good faith, with a source, and you revert it? No apology, no talk page discussion, no hesitation, no tact, no consideration of personal feelings, no Wikilove. I'm sorry TP, but that was truly disgraceful. It doesn't even matter what the contribution was, you just don't do that to your fellow editors. Stevage03:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's can it with the authourative tone and grade-school tattle-tactics. The goal of Wiki is to inform; it is not a pasteboard for one's own obsessions. Hardouin is simply continuing a revert-war from one year ago on a subject that was amply discussed on the talk page. You simply don't compare one object to another if the only goal is to show everyone that the (unexplained) other exists - this is both stupid and uninformative. No bad blood from here, but in the future take a real look at the situation before sending knee-jerk responses to calculated complaints that may or may not be true. THEPROMENADER09:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but we simply don't revert other people's good-faith edits. I, for one, virtually never do. Ever. I discuss it on the talk page, I discuss it with the person, or I get a third opinion. Was his edit vandalism? No. Was it made in bad faith? No. Is there widespread consensus that the view his contribution reflects is patently false? No. Is there any justification for such rude, uncivil behaviour? No. Stevage10:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did you even read the talk page? Did you even look at the page history? Did you even try to make sense of the phrase in question? Would you call reverting to a version eight months before a "good-faith edit"? Please save the effort of forwarding your opinions in a matter if you are unwilling to research it beforehand - you're just fanning flames here. THEPROMENADER11:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS - Also, I think a good phrase to describe the actions of someone whos first edit in eight months is a revert to a contribution he knows wrong and opposed would be "taking the piss". Cheers. THEPROMENADER11:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bush criticism article
I removed that section because it violates WP:OR. It stated "many occasions" of questioning his leadership, yet it only cites a single source, one which does not even criticize his leadership. This is not allowed on Wikipedia, and is especially enforced in articles pertaining to living people. (see WP:BLP). - Crockspot15:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I restored the section, albeit a bit hastily to avoid it getting absorbed into the edit history. I weakened the statement, and added another source. Unfortunately, the source is John Kerry during the presidential campaign. More sources are still needed, if you have any to offer. It shouldn't be too difficult, the problem is all the blogs showing up on google. Anyway, the section can more-or-less stand for now, I think. Silly rabbit16:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it still violates BLP via OR, it will get removed again, but I don't have time to look at it right now. I have the google news archive linked on my user page (quick ref section), which gives you just news articles. Try that. - Crockspot16:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa, you two. There is no justification to remove the entire section - if there is criticism (overwhelmingly) present in the press, it has a right to be there. Especially the part about Bush's pendant-9/11 inactivity - this was highly covered by the press the world over.THEPROMENADER20:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but you're wrong. The section that I originally removed cited a one reliable source that only sourced the fact that there was a seven minute delay. It did not criticize Bush for anything, rather, it seemed to be supportive of Bush's leadership. There was also a claim that there was frequent criticism, but you did not even have a single source that documented a single instance of criticism. If these sources exist, then find them and cite them BEFORE you add a section to an article of a living person. WP:BLP calls for all unsourced or poorly sourced information about living persons to be removed immediately, without discussion. It is not my responsibility to source claims that you want in the article. It is YOUR responsibility to source them properly, or stand by and watch while they are removed. The standard for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. - Crockspot21:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC) Oh, BTW, this was not "highly covered". It was in Michael Moore's movie, and John Kerry used it during the 2004 campaign. That's pretty much the extent of the coverage of the 7 minute Pet Goat incident. But if you can find others, then cite them. - Crockspot[reply]
No matter how you put it, there should never be a call to remove an entire section even to its heading. If you would like to contest the time of the hesitation, or would like to find a differing source, then do so, but removing it is uncalled for because the delay - no matter how long - was a highly covered fact. If sources are needed for such a major media event, then sources can easily be found. Cheers. THEPROMENADER23:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whoop, here even the right-leaning Washington post agrees that it was seven minutes. That search took all of ten seconds. Perhaps do the same! THEPROMENADER23:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Paris
Please be more careful when you revert vandalism, not to revert good faith edits as well like you did when you reverted Paris
Thank You
AngielaJ 15:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Dear Angie,
This is what I reverted - here note the "poop" in the contribution. For the record, "Paris's" is not correct usage. Is this a joke? Cheers. THEPROMENADER16:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know who slipped the poop in but when you did the revert to remove it you also removed Paris's in the Cemetary Section of the Paris article.
As for whether it's Paris's or Paris',I really don't want to fight with you over it. Here is a link to the proper usage. I work in publications. I know what I'm talking about. here
AngielaJ 02:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Who's fighting? There's nothing wrong with discussion. It's obvious that both "Paris' " and "Paris's" are common usage and acceptable. Now, for which one... I'd take the "dominant" one - meaning either most-used or most-correct - but that may be a case difficult to make. For the time being, if the article uses " Paris' ", I suggest you leave it that way until you can make case enough to change everything instead of just a few instances. I think it's a question of choice more than anything - like British English vs. American English. THEPROMENADER07:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
![[7]](http://www.metro-pole.net/actu/IMG/jpg/2006-11-20_5367_Nouveau_listing_dans_un_MF67_L5_p.jpg){kind=link}
){kind=link}
