User talk:ThePromenader

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Archive ~2007-09-04


Contents


[edit] Comment removed by Hardouin from his talk page

[edit] Kindly stop your manipulative efforts

There is no admin "disussion", "case", or even awareness, over your un-factual use of the term "metropolitan area". Stop stating the contrary to administrators and other contributors - it is a time-buying tactic dishonest, disruptive and bothersome. Instead, try presenting some factual arguments to better/contradict those referenced arguments I have already provided - although we both know this is not possible. Get factual, and stop whining to everyone please. Thanks. THEPROMENADER 13:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Hardouin sock puppet case

Sock puppet cases tend to move slowly until an admin makes a decision. (I am not an admin.) I have lost interest in this case, so I'll refer you to three of the admins who have closed cases recently, and maybe one of them can help you. These are User talk:Akhilleus, User talk:MastCell, and User talk:Seraphimblade. Shalom Hello 01:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - I'm in no hurry. It's not an easy case for sure. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 07:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cambiare nome

Hello! Can I cambiare my USERNAME? Where? --Barbagianni Potente 11:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

È una cosa molto difficile da fare. Il più semplice sarebbe di creare un nuovo 'Utente', allora indica il vostro vecchio nome alla parte superiore di esso - questo modo nessuno "sock-puppetry" li accuserà. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 12:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Working together?

My "preference" for the comma convention (when dabbing is required) only stems from my belief that dabbing with parenthesis would never be accepted. Perhaps I am wrong about that. In any case, I am not married to any particular convention. What is most important to me is that we see some kind of common guideline among all cities in the world, and I hope you and I can work towards that productively. --Serge 22:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. I have no qualm at all with any argument that is derived objectively - please, prove me wrong on anything at all in this way - but this seems to be lacking in discussions over the "city, state" convention. How can any discussion progress when those fixed in their choices (or against the choices of others) are unable to state their case in an anylitical and wiki-reader-point-of-function way? "Choice of the majority" seems to be the only weight-bearing argument in any discussion on this subject.
Most all those involved are not thinking from the (very!) "interntional reader" point of view - they seem most concerned with imposing their own on their own little corner. Excuse my impatience, but, as I said before, in many ways this discussion is dishonest to its core. THEPROMENADER 22:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Perhaps you misunderstood?

  • We do have a system that works: WP:NC(CN) and WP:D. The reason we have all this conflict is that we're not using that system. Note the relative lack of conflict in classes of articles that do not systematically violate WP:NC(CN) and WP:D. Like Canadian city names. --Serge 20:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry to call a card a card, the WP:NC(CN) citation is just a stretch attempt to justify the "city, state" method (but even this trial is only accepted locally, and even then by far from all), and there is nary a mention of a comma anywhere in WP:D. Perhaps you'd be better to state "we have a justification that 'works'" - at least for you locals. THEPROMENADER 22:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I assume you misunderstood, so I'm replying here so you can remove or modify your comments accordingly. I don't know who might be using WP:NC(CN) to justify the "city, state" method, but it's certainly not me! I'm using it to justify Paris, Gdansk, New York City, San Francisco, etc. In other words to justify [[CityNameAlone]] whenever dabbing is not required per WP:D, for any city in any country in the world. This is the system that we have that works for the vast majority of articles in Wikipedia, except we happen to not be using it for U.S. cities. Hence all the conflict. --Serge 23:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • No, I don't think I misunderstood. No matter the motive, citing WP:NC(CN), whether to say one should or shouldn't use "city, state", is rather besides the point - that rule was made for promoting the clarity of names alone, not for disallowing methods of (pre-)disambiguation. This is Wikilawyering, and just muddles the debate - if the rule is applied to a situation it wasn't explicitly made for, it can actually used on any side of the argument.
Use reasoning in your arguments, man. ", State" for readers is nothing but disambiguation - only a Wiklawyering few seeking to promote their local manner of speech as a convention (to be followed by all?) would even need the inventive argument that ", State" is part of "City" name. First decide on what a city's name is - by consensus if you have to in order to clarify the debate - and only then decide on questions of (pre-)disambiguation.
You should be thinking about what's best adapted to the media - few are. Worse still, the fact that the majority of Wikipedians are Americans makes doing this even more difficult - if it's the majority that wants to use their local customs, there will always be consensus to do the same. To counter this you're going to have to a) show them a method better adapted to the media and b) make it clear that their local method is not what's best for the same. I know that a few aren't even willing to consider the question, but if the comma habit didn't exist in everyday U.S. life, it would never be used here - period. My greatest reservation with this trend is that these contributors are basically naming articles for themselves, not readers, and all the reasoning is "local" - a reader doesn't care what rules justify this or that title, he just wants to know what an article's about with as little hassle as possible.
Okay for the problems, but solutions? I've tried, albeit not in a highly promotional way, to find one. The best I found was that all placenames be pre-disambiguated, with country name, with parentheses - this instantly identifies the article/title for the placename it is, its location, allows for clear mult-level disambiguation if it is needed, and is adapted to the thousands of conflicts created both by shared city names (the world over) and the "store/search by title" technical nature of the Wikipedia media.
If you keep the debate "U.S. only" you'll be going in circles forever - the same problems because of the same method because of the same conflicting names, plus the egos of the same (American) contributors seeking to maintain that method in spite of all the problems it causes... in a word, owch. Then *yawn*. THEPROMENADER 07:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Naming conventions-and support

Yes, we may differ about the use of the comma. However I do see the need for parenthetical disambiguation in addition to the comma. The comma is basically the style in my mind. So, as I have said several times without getting any support, I see Elgin, Lancaster County, South Carolina and Elgin, Kershaw County, South Carolina as being completely wrong. They should be city, state (disambiguation) as in Elgin, South Carolina (Lancaster County) and Elgin, South Carolina (Kershaw County). This totally follows what many editors see as disambiguation and in these cases the articles need disambiguation. I'm not sure how my position affects the naming of neighborhoods. Vegaswikian 23:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Re Paris v Paris, France v Paris, Île-de-France. This exposes one of the problems with a world wide standard. While in the US and Canada, using a state, province or territory seems to be acceptable for a clear identifier as to the location, the same may not apply to all countries. In some, it may be city, county. Look at some of the debates in England where this can be a very sensitive issue. So if we go with a [city, higher level] convention, that higher level really needs to be decided on a country by county location. If we chose [city, region] for France, many would be confused if we said Martinique, Martinique since it is both an island and a department of France or do islands have a naming convention? Of how about arrondissement of Fort-de-France, France which is in the Martinique department in the Martinique region or France. If we were to use city, region for France, what do we do with an overseas collectivity? Do we use something link Saint-Barthélemy, Collectivity of Saint-Barthélemy or Saint-Barthélemy, France. A lot of details to be worked out. Vegaswikian 19:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your comments at User talk:Captain scarlet

It seems Captain scarlet and I are at a Stalemate concerning {{TER}} and the respective régions. He insists that the régions must be ordered from North to South (which looks like a complete mess to me, plus it seems obvious Alsace is not the Northernmost région), while I prefer a more soothing Alphabetical list.

Futhermore, He believes there should be no dashes in the naming conventions (ex: TER Rhône Alpes, though surprisingly TER Nord-Pas-de-Calais), though I think that dashes should connect the entities that form the régions name (ex: TER Rhône-Alpes from the Rhône river and the Alps, TER Nord-Pas de Calais from the départements Nord and Pas de Calais).

This argument seems to be going nowhere. Could you please give your opinion on the problem with {{TER}} and specify what you think the "Closest to reality" form is. We could then write this as a convention at WP:FR/CON. Waiting for you reply, ChrisDHDR ( • contrib's) 09:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

PS:With now 108 discussions on your talk page, don't you thing it's the time to Archive???

For sure, it's time to archive. Thanks for the reminder. As for the discussion at hand, I don't think I can make myself much clearer than my earlier comment without repetition: For the better good (and later cross-referencing) of placename articles, I think it best to use the official name, and not the SNCF one. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 21:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chemin de fer de Petite Ceinture

I understand your point and undid the move. ChrisDHDR 16:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your comprehension. Best,
THEPROMENADER 19:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation Cabal

Hello,
I've decided to take your case at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-09-02 Economy of Paris. If you have no objection the discussion can begin right away--Pheonix15 18:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Could you archive your talk page as it's pretty cumbersome for a 26k dial-up?

[edit] Thankyou

If that's your opinion then we have closed this case without the participation of one side in a record time, a first for the cabal. We also rarly get users willing to follow a logical argument, many throw insults and become blocked. ThePromenader, you truly seem to work towards the interests of the encyclopedia rather than your own--Pheonix15 22:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject_France/Conventions

I noticed a comment you left there in February. I'm concerned about the existence of Wikipedia:WikiProject_France/Conventions and how it could contradict Wikipedia MoS and naming conventions by having it's own little naming convention no one outside of WikiProject France would know about but would have to adhere to if WikiProject France/Conventions uses its members as a steam roller. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 10:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

My bad, thought copy pasting the project page would have been sufficient ;) Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 08:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for the message

I have been very much absent recently, mainly because of personal circumstances. However, I shall be more active in the foreseeable future. Green Giant 19:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other occupations?

Heyup Promenader, having fun with our good friend Hardouin? Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 10:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Again hours of time lost to correct one bleeding sentence - yep, fun indeed. Can you look into the matter - if my reasoning is also reason to you, your input would be a help. We need more editors for these articles! THEPROMENADER 11:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
But I really can't stand him... I've tried to talk to him in the past, it hasn't worked; he just does not work with spirit of Wikipedia cooperation. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 11:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I see; he's doing an Hardouin again. Hard to believe you haven't got him banned for all he did... 2 years down the road and he's still not communicating, not cooperating, no listening, not sourcing, not being a Wikipedian. you know I'll support you on this one. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 11:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. It's hard not to fall into his game, but there really is no other way to resist his pushiness - if no-one contests his fictitious claims, Wikipedia will be a source of "France is like the U.S." tripe. Not to mention uninformitive "push the buzzword" nonsense. All the fault is of course with those who really care enough about the article to ensure its veracity... Wikipedia should be source of fact, not frustration.
As for banning - sure. Do I really have to do this though? Lord knows I've got a collection enough of his shennanigans. Problem is is that he's always whining to admins he knows know nothing about the subject concerned - a very calculated move to complicate the affair even more. It's a sad thing to see a contributor use Wikipedia as a source of his own identity... does he not have a real trade, or any real work to do? Anyhow - thanks for your insightful support, as always. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 11:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Think of it this way and put aside our sentiments for a minute. What do we see, what has his input been on articles we look at (one can only comment on things he knows about to remian objective off course). We've been having these stupid and useless arguments for two odd years? Nothing's progressed, everything factual but geared towards a particular outcome is removed by him and personnal opinions put forward with little sourcing and unreferenced. On top his poor editing skills for our Parisian articles lies his behaviour. Removing good information and putting in his own mambo jumbo. He's lied to people (i think we've both experienced this) he's used the system to his own ends, he's ignored any type of requests and concensus on many, many occasions: His presence is clearly not appropriate here. Don't take me wrong, I don't know him personally and I'm sure he's delightful in real life (he could just as well not be though admitedly) but his presence here is most disrupting. You're the one who lives with him on Wikipedia and as such I think it's better for you to bring it forward, you can word it better, be more precise, correct and you have the dirt on him. I've witnessed his behaviour many, many times so I can back you up with factual information and testimonies so as to not make you make an empty case. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 13:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, captain - much appreciated. THEPROMENADER 13:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Could anyone of both of you explain me why it's so important for you to not mention that most of Ile-de-France belongs to the Paris metropolitan area? Why do you need so much to hide that information? What would it change if that would appear in the article? You complain about Hardouin's lack of cooperation... but what about you? Do you believe you're good Wikipedians fighting for the truth? If so why hiding it?

Don't believe you're better than Hardouin, because obviously, you are not. Metropolitan 15:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC).

I couldn't give a (expletive) who's "better" - but what I do know is that the edits I made make the article conform to real - and not wishful - terminology. If someone wants to look up the terms described in real and official French publications, they won't find them - period. What is this about "hiding" - what? If we are indeed talking about the "aire urbaine", then it should be described (and translated) as such - enough pipe dreams of another country's terminology - stick to fact, period. THEPROMENADER 18:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
It is important to us not to lose weasel words such as area, urban and metropolitan... Your comments mean to lead me to think you think you know why we are communicating about this subject with bad intentions when good faith should dictate you to believe our intentions are noble. Why answer you question when the whole debacle of 3RR breaching, insults, name callings and other uncivil actions are exactly this. Why take this into this conversation when the article's talk page is there for that. concentrate on IdF instead of elusive notions, not even entities, as metropolitan areas which have little use other than for statistics and not used by anyone else than boffins and geeks.
You seem to concentrate alone on getting weasel words included in articles and oversaw the reason for this conversation; condemnation of the behaviour of another Wikipedian and the error in the way his ideas were put forward. Obviously your opinion, no facts to back up your comment other than anger on your side and the need to protect one of your aquaintances? Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 14:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't really understand - what weasel words? My inclusion of "metropolitan area" is only an attempt at compromise - normally even this should not be used because the official translation of "aire urbaine" is "urban area", not "metropolitan area", and in fact the latter term has never even been used in any official France-based English publications. My goal is to subscribe to reality and fact, and to eliminate any misguided attempt at trying to pretend that one country's terminology is another's. This problem is simple and easy to correct; it is all the fuss created by pushy reverting and complaining campaigns. Were we to subscribe to Wikipedia policy, it would be the official translation that would hold sway here - but I have bowed to that in favour of compromise, even if the idea of sacrificing fact to the questionable aspirations of single pushy Wikipedian seems silly. Much ado about ego - or in other words, nothing. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 17:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh, vey, I get it - the message was to User:Metropolitan. My dumb. THEPROMENADER 17:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

No matter if the concept of metropolitan areas is only used by boffins and geeks, that's the purpose of an encyclopedia to mention that fact. We cannot divide informations between those for "cool guys" and those for "boffins and geeks". The whole concept of metropolitan areas is used in the description of many cities worldwide, and this right here on wikipedia. The only city where there are people disagreeing with this information to be communicated is right here, for Paris. In talking about the Paris metropolitan area, Hardouin does exactly the same as what is made in so many other cities articles. And Captain Scarlett, why don't you whine about the Nassau county mentionning in its very first sentence that it belongs to the New York metropolitan area? How selective is your objectivity. Metropolitan 22:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC).

I can understand the desire to create a single "world schema" for all Wikipedia articles, but it is one both naiive and misguided. The fact is that every country has their own methods and terminology, and those methods cannot be ignored as though they don't exist, nor can they be replaced with those of another country. Although it "sounds better" (especially to those with grandiose dreams of other shores), France and its INSEE actually refuse the term "metropolitan area" to describe their aire urbaine - it is present nowhere in any of their English documentation - and they indicate very clearly that the official translation is "urban area". Although you may not "like" this fact, it cannot be ignored. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 01:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Misguided to the end, you were the first time I met you still are now, so full of energy to put people down. At least make an effort spelling my pseudonym, it'll seem les of an attempt to insult me if you did. At least such an extrovert attempt at humour clearly shows where your intentions lie and what should be done to channel them. My objectivity is fine where it is: I don't give a rats of what is on Nassau County, New York. Put whatever you want there why should I care, I don't spy on you, I'm not going to modify article you edit despite me not caring about the article's subject! Despite the addition of most excellent metropolitan information I'm sure many people who don't believe metropolitan exists, the article is still B-Class, so boohoo. Gosh, New York metropolitan area is also just as poor. Does that mean I can call you B-Class? No metropolitan is used to describe nothing, for that's what it is: nothing, just like urban area... Oh yes, tit for tat. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 22:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edits to Paris article

Hi ThePromenader.

Thank you for your kind message. I will of course discuss any major changes, although I think my editing will mainly be limited to getting rid of those damned 'citation needed' markers all over the shop, they're like red rag to a bull for me!

Thanks

--Chrisfow (talk) 20:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

That's why I put them there : ) I was hoping also that the contributor of many of those "challengable" claims would dish up his sources, but it looks as though that job has been left to others. Thanks a lot for your help! THEPROMENADER 20:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your underground Paris photos

Just wanted to say that your photos "Paris Souterrain" are mind-blowing. Lazulilasher (talk) 14:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Those were a result of five days underground, 30km walked, 30k of photo/lighting equipment, and a lot of wet clothing ... your comment makes it all seem worthwile - thanks! THEPROMENADER 19:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Camera, Cornelius, Kimura

Hi. Would you mind if I copied our discussion to the talk page of the perhaps unfortunately named article?

If you agree and want to reply to my latest, do please simply copy it over to the article's talk page and reply to it there.

Irrelevantly to any magazine, today I noticed the existence of an article on Peter Cornelius. I vaguely remember having noticed his name in an article in the IHT about a major exhibition in Paris of the history of color photography in Paris. You'd be well placed to add material to the article on Cornelius, if his work happened to interest you.

Yes, I remember being puzzled by the non-mention of Kimura Ihei in the IHT article. The 1970s book of Kimura's 1950s color photos of Paris is highly praised by Gerry Badger in one or other of the Parr/Badger books on photobooks; perhaps partly as a result, it's now horrendously expensive in Tokyo (though not rare). Unless you're a well-heeled collector, it's been rendered quite unnecessary by the new book of Kimura's Paris photos. This too has a stiff price-tag; but it's not outrageous, and perhaps a copy of the book is browsable in a bookshop near you.

One of these years I must develop Kimura's article into something that's more than a mere stub. Just listing the books was so exhausting that I ran out of puff.

If you'd like to reply about Cornelius or Kimura, please do so here; I'm no fan of conversations that pingpong from page to page. -- Hoary (talk) 02:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind at all... please do. For the Camera (Swiss magazine) subject, let's take it over there.
Cornelius' work does indeed interest me - he's in the same league as Robert Frank in my books. Yes, that article could use some development. I wonder if his official site would be willing to release a few of his (low-resolution) images into the public domain for a Wikipedia article? Worth looking into.
I don't seem to have much time these days to do more than minor corrections... the "busy period" is starting this weekend, and I have to set up a whole server infrastructure right after. I hope at least I'll find the time between shows to see that exposition - thanks for the heads-up : ) Take care, and cheers. THEPROMENADER 21:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I've moved the article back, done the miscellaneous work that that prompted, and tidied some things within it whose fixes were obvious. Over to you! -- 10:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoary (talk • contribs)

Thank you, Hoary. Thanks also for (indirectly) keying me in to the "History of Photography" workgroup - it's good to have something else to work on than my usual Paris-based articles: I've signed myself up, but don't think I'll have time to actively contribute for at least a couple months. Anyhoo, all the best and see you soon. THEPROMENADER 08:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Minor issue

On your userpage, in #Favourite Musicians/Music "Nirvana" doesn't link to the band. You should disambiguate to Nirvana (band). --Pwnage8 (talk) 15:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)