User:Green Giant/Archive 01

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Talk Page Archives Archives
Main talk page

Contents

[edit] Welcome!

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  --Khoikhoi 03:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you Khoikhoi

Much appreciate the welcome message :) Green Giant 16:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] city symbols

the list of city officials should remain. I put the CoA specifically because the city template has no provision for that.

Pizzadeliveryboy 00:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] have added on yr idea

Hi:

I have modified the infobox as per yr points. Any ideas on formatting are welcome.

Pizzadeliveryboy 00:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Done with formatting the seal

I used a diffent template or else I was messing with Kolkata/Bangalore pages too!!! Any ideas on formatting???

Pizzadeliveryboy 01:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paris Page

Green Giant,

Ho ho ho. Thanks for your Paris page edit - and sorry that this "baptism" was reverted - this is a recurring problem there. I set that straight this morning; your edits are back in place.

Although "Paris" should normally be a much-frequented subject, its Wiki page has very few editors - only one in particular for the time being, and it is this lack of consensus that is responsible for the page's stagnation. Are you knowledgable on the subject? Even engaging in lively discussion about eventual improvements on its talk page would be much welcome and could be enough to get things going there. Anyhow, beinvenue : ) THEPROMENADER 10:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

My apologies for the Paris-page bedlam - the author who reverted your work is a bit of a stickler about protecting his opinions. Don't let this get you down though - things will be fine if we (wikipedians) keep pulling in the direction of reason and readablility. In any case that's what I'm pulling for there. Cheers! THEPROMENADER 21:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually you are a godsend - I have been waiting since months for someone who a) knows enough about Paris to know what the *$%&*$ I'm going on about on the talk page and b) has the b*lls to stick around long enough to change anything. I've been commended for my 'trials' there but this is neither help, reason nor consensus - I can't tell you how much time and research I've wasted on proving the fact of my misgivings, and trying to spell them out in plain language! Thank you for finally arriving!
Today was important as a certain contributor's behaviour has been increasingly bold and bad - today's wholesale reverts flew in the face of both reason and consensus. There is little anyone can do against this sort of behaviour on Wiki, especially in subjects as particular to English readers as Paris is, and I am quite certain the person in question knows it. Thank you also for helping to overcome this.
Although I'm glad to finally have some help in the fight towards reason, I must stress that I always place reason first. If together we can determine a) what could be improved and b) prove the veracity of the information that would replace it, I think we can finally begin getting around to finally making some improvements to the article. What's more, this 'no consensus possible' deadlock broken and 'threat of revert' removed, perhaps contributors new and old (and the page's original creators) will return once again. So thanks on all counts. Now let's get to work!
THEPROMENADER 03:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Paris should be a showcase article.
Hallelujiah! Now I must get to bed : ) THEPROMENADER 03:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Green Giant,

I just saw your Talk:Paris page addition this morning - you certainly do have your sources! If you have tried sorting out anything in the rest of the talk page you may have noticed that I also have been attempting to dissemble and disprove the "Paris is its 'aire urbaine' (which is a 'metropolitan area')" theory dominating the article as fact - but I haven't been able to in any few words. Could you give the 'Contested Content; POV' section a read-through when you have the time, and perhaps add notes on any sense/nonsense you see in it? I intended to make changes even today, but it would be nice to build some honest consensus first. This would also leave my 'pause time' free for other more less tedious chores : )

Thanks in advance, cheers,

THEPROMENADER 09:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

This is odd - did you forget to log in again? The user 81.64.90.173 just reverted the Paris page back to its "fifth or sixth, depending on the sources" economy phrasing - and placed Paris fifth in the ranking of the "world's largest Metropolitan area economies" in the "Paris economy" article. Perhaps you are not aware that this battle in ambiguity has been going on for the better part of a year now, and these reverts are exactly those Hardouin always makes - but always under his own name. What's odder is that the same user also made edits to other articles as well - If it was indeed you, don't forget to hit the "remember me" button next time you log in : ) THEPROMENADER 14:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Forget the last message - Hardouin seems to have become a HalfMoonBay sock puppet. THEPROMENADER 15:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I have to say yesterday's events and this morning's message ended by making me quite angry, so I'm happy for a break - I've got some photos to take in Wissous. Sources, Roman aqueducts, 'fun stuff' for me.

Please continue to correct and comment any and everything in the Paris Page - one cannot be bogged down by designs in distraction. I have a few maps to complete for the "Streets of Paris" Wikiproject, then I will be able to get around to making the improvements noted on the talk page. In the meantime If you see anything there that could use some refining or rephrasing, please do - thanks in advance.

Take care,

THEPROMENADER 07:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Yesterday I broke my own cardinal rule - keeping my sights on the central issue - and it is more than likely because of this that the Paris talk page is overflowing with new bush-beating banter. This won't be the case today.
It would be simpler if discussion would stick to existing reference works - Do you have a working e-mail registered at Wiki? I could forward you the complete Paris articles from the Encyclopedia Britannica 2006 and Encyclopedie Universalis. If you would like webpage references I would stick to "official" references such as the concerned Mairies, departments and région Île-de-France. (do a search for "metropolitan area" or "aire urbaine" somewhere in these - here or here- to see what priority this statistic has at present).
I have nothing against the word 'metroplitan area' or the 'aire urbaine' concept it represents - my proposed edits make this clear - , but if it is to be used it must be explained and used context, and as a reference to nothing outside the population, place of work and trade information collected within it. Anything outside this is non-factual. Damn, I think I just said it simply : )
THEPROMENADER 09:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
PS: Feel free to archive any or all of the above!
Green Giant,
I'm just about done with the Paris page corrections - shall we get about making a 'showcase article' anytime soon?
all the best,
THEPROMENADER 18:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] please check - there are some really unreadable sections in Mumbai now!!!

Pizzadeliveryboy 01:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

I've been editing in Wikipedia for quite sometime now and am currently working on improving the Kargil War having added content backed with good references and in NPOV IMO. Since you've been editing some subcontinent content with a third party perspective I thought I'd request you in inputting anything in Wikipedia:Peer review/Kargil War. I've incorporated most of the suggestions from other editors. Plz take a look. Idleguy 10:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] changes vetted

I have vetted the changes - reverted some - modified some - kept some. Most of your changes resulted in moving from a passive to an active voice construction, which is good. But in some places they seemed out of place, so either modified them or reverted for lack of a better version.

Pizzadeliveryboy 16:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Pakistan

Not a problem, I was just doing vandal patrol and just try to pick the most recent version that doesn't appear vandalized. I trust your knowledge of the subject. (ESkog)(Talk) 04:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paris Consensus

I like the changes you made to your User page. I saw your detailed contribution to Talk:Paris - I'm not sure how much research you had to do, but thanks for that. Knowing something isn't right is one thing, but going through all the work to prove it is another - it is most likely for this that the Paris page remained unchanged for so long.

I've concluded the 'comparison of areas' section, and, in light of your message, added a very short 'apellation consensus' other. Please feel free to add to it.

Take care,

THEPROMENADER 07:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

PS: Cancel the 'apellation consensus' bit above - I've removed it to give your contribution time to breathe. I did find one 'eek' within though: - because only the Ile-de-France region is the metropolitan area - I see your meaning, and this is in favour of the Paris article becoming about something more 'Paris', but as this concerns mainly the Île-de-France I'll explain here. If you don't mind.
"Metropolitan area" is the best translation possible for "aire urbaine" - they are both statistical commuter belts. The Île-de-France is a 'région' with a very strong administrative boundries and a very imposing political makeup. They are two completely different things.
I wouldn't give too much weight to that 'metropolis' association - ony the name has anything in common with "metropolitan area", and the association has existed since before the idea of "aire urbaine" ever existed. If anything the website shows to what point Paris' neighbouring départements impose themselves as independant political entities: Any Paris project extending even just a little past its borders imparitively requires the involvment of the representative of the concerned departement. It is for this that the mayor of Paris had to take (as baggage, some would say), the representatives from Paris' closest departements and a representative for the Île-de-France region. The 'metropolis' project most likely involves Paris to the limits of its agglomeration - which extends into most all of the Île-de-France's eight departements, albeit only a smidgen into the four outer ones. It is for this that you don't see "aire urbiane" or "metropolitan area" in any official website - the term and even concept is unused and even ignored by politicians. The 'aire urbaine' (metoropolitan area) is simply not an aknowledged entity of any sort here. I hope I made this clear.
My misgivings with the Paris' article's use of "metropolitan area" in that it is used as an excuse to claim everything past Paris' agglomeration - even the entire Île-de-France region - as Paris itself. The logic used is this: If Paris' 'aire urbaine' limits are 'almost the same' as those of the Île-de-France, then there is no reason why we cannot speak of everything within the Île-de-France as belonging to the 'aire urbaine'. If everything within the 'aire urbaine' belongs to Pairs, then so does everything within the Île-de-France.
When you are reading about the "Paris metropolitan area" in the Paris article, three times out of four you are reading info on the Île-de-France. This will give you a good idea what the article will look like once we do give evrything its correct appellation. Have a look at the stagnated state of the Île-de-France (région) article to see where much of it should go. And please have a look at the article (and its talk page) to see how they treat the 'aire urbaine' : )
All this is horribly complicated to sort out, isn't it? I hope we do soon. I'm looking forward to having more time for contributing.
Cheers. THEPROMENADER 09:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the message. But LOL - I see that you're still mixing the Île-de-France and "aire urbaine" concepts. The "metropolitan area" template is actually correct in its content - it contains all the communes englobed in the latest (1999) INSEE definition of the 'aire urbaine'. One can question the template's presence in the Paris page - I have, and Thbz as well - as it makes much more 'noise' than its informative value.
Remember: to the template's authour, the 'aire urbaine' and 'metropolitan area' are one and the same. The template should actually be called "communes in the aire urbaine" and be linked to the aire urbaine article, but as a compromise we had to make do with the "metropolitan area" title linked to the 'aire urbaine' article. Perhaps you should put this back as it was? I do find amusing though that the introduction to the metropolitan area article you linked it to explains very clearly the extreme caution with which this title should be used, and the lack of seriousness of any comparisons between any two regions from different countries using this title. You could also have a look at Largest_European_metropolitan_areas for more lucidity on the matter.
I have perhaps forgotten to mention the Paris article's 'Paris is its metropolitan area' theme's most glaring illogic: there is a New York City and New York metropolitan area article; there is a London article and a Greater London article; but there is no Paris and Paris metropolitan area article. Why? THEPROMENADER

[edit] Paris Photo/Infobox

Could you perhaps take care of this? Your changes before were nice but there was a big white space above the photo - perhaps changing "clear:both" to "clear:right" in the spacer div will set things straight. I must fly and won't be back till late this afternoon so if you don't get to it first I can see to it then. Cheers! THEPROMENADER 10:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I just did it myself - acutally it was a bit more complicated than I thought as it was actually the template's code messing things up. All set now. THEPROMENADER 20:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paris Population Density, etc

GG,

Could you have a look to the population/density section of the Paris page? You seem to be knowledgable in such matters, and I am not completely sure about the veracity/validity/utility of the comparisons there. Thanks if you can find the time.

THEPROMENADER 22:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Can I ask for some input on the Paris page? Corrections were going fine but lately I've had less time - In my absence I noticed that "metropolitan area" has begun to sneak its way into the article once again. Corrections to this were met with reverts of course. I've also tried to shorten the infobox of its needless "metropolitan area" and use the space to add other more relevent and useful information - these are being reverted outright. I think, once again, truth and consensus are going to have to be made clear. THEPROMENADER 08:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/r/e/User%7EGreen_Giant_Archive_01_0a5c.html"
In other languages