User talk:Captain scarlet/Archive2

To go back to main discussion page: click here.

Great Northern Route[edit]

Hi Captain. Please see my comment on the above. Many months ago I spent some time in revising the West Yorkshire Metro routes Category:Transport in West Yorkshire, which had much the same problem as that given here. The differentiation between what the TOC uses for its marketing of the lines (eg Pontefract Line and the actual routes followed, which can very often be used by other services along the same pathways, is hard to put across. Prior to such wholesale PR work on the part of the TOCs, it was most usual in railway publications to describe a particular line of railway, geographically, and then add that 'X services use this line. A good example was the Brighton Belle pullman car service, which used the Brighton Main Line. The article for the service would not then need to show every single station, since it was non-stop!; although the descriptive article for the line itself would. It was that problems which prompted me to do the West Yorks Metro revision. Peter Shearan 09:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or should i merge it? Simply south 09:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MV Val de Loire/MS King of Scandinavia[edit]

The article move was not "unnecessary" nor "unjustified". As the current name of the vessel is "King of Scandinavia", that should be the name of the article. I was in the process of rewriting the article to reflect its new name, including details of all its past names and service histories, and there was an edit conflict when I tried to save it. The way you have left things has now duplicated much of the information (statistics, sister ships, etc.) across two articles, when one should suffice. After all, they are both about the same ship, just with different names. Please look at my new version. --RFBailey 16:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article MV Val de Loire was created to describe the Val de Loire, I seperated information, admitedly rather clumsily to maintain the VdL article. Information related to the KoS was kept in its article, leaving the Britnay Ferries information in the original article. They very well might be the same ship, but the article was created with intent to treat on a specific topic to create a series of Brittany Ferries specific articles, little information of previous and latter workings was purposely disregarded as it was not the topic. You may add as much information concerning KoS in its article, and ask before moving an article that was written with thought and scope studied not to off-topic. Both articles (or three if you want to) all have their place to relate to a specific period of time. Maybe you would like to rename SS France to Norway then ? Cheers, Captain scarlet 16:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need for two separate articles (and certainly not three). I appreciate you were creating a series of articles on Brittany Ferries vessels, but the duplication of material is unnecessary. I don't agree that it is "off-topic" either: it's all about the same ship. You claim that information about the ship's career with TT Line or DFDS was not the topic you intended for the article: in which case, why have you included some anyway? Besides, information about sister ships etc. is equally relevant regardless of the name.

Also, your removal of one of the sister ships (whilst leaving the other three) from the list in the KoS article is quite frankly inexplicable.

Please try not to be so defensive about articles you have created. Other people are allowed to edit this encyclopaedia too. Remember to assume good faith. --RFBailey 17:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need for two separate articles (and certainly not three) in which case there wa sno need to move it.
but the duplication of material is unnecessary delete anything duplicated from the MS King of Scandinavia.
it's all about the same ship I dissagree, throughout history, many places, items or devices change name and countless topics have more than one entry, see Tor (geography) and Hill, two smimilar topics but diversified, hence two articles for two seperate periods of time with very relevant information in each. Many other articles of topics ideas which where latterly merged into one retain their own article for their distinct contribution in history which is what is emulated with two articles for the two named ship. It enables editors who write about DFDS or Brittany Ferries to link to each or other article with relevant non off topic information.
in which case, why have you included some anyway? I added an very brief resumé of the ships former and latter timeline to place it into context with user Red Fox adding more, you may ask him for more information.
'Please try not to be so defensive about articles you have created. I'm just as defensive with this article as I am with any other which I have not created and which do not warrant moving or articles which warrant disctinct entries.
assume good faith I've never acucsed you of anything, so I see little point in this remark, I can only assume you took my decison too personnally.

Regards, Captain scarlet 17:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tinsley Yard (2)[edit]

Hi Captain. do you have a copy of the tinsley yard logo by any chance? thanksLedgero2 10:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't. If it's just a BR style depot/yard sign, it shouldn't be dcifficult to create. Captain scarlet 11:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ok. i have only seen it on one picture, and it was too small to see clearly (and i cant remember where) Ledgero2 12:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC) found it.this is it[[1]][reply]

Req move Ecclesall Road (Sheffield) to Ecclesall Road[edit]

Hi, thanks for participating to the article Ecclesall Road. the redirect you have edited in is the opposite that was requested. If there are no objections, the article currently named Ecclesall Road (Sheffield) should be move to Ecclesall Road with a redirect on Ecclesall Road (Sheffield) pointing to Ecclesall Road, rather than the opposite. Cheers, Captain scarlet 11:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But having deleted the page history, you can now do the move yourself. --Henrygb 14:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aaaah, well I've buggered that one up... Could you do it again please ? Captain scarlet 16:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ferries[edit]

Thank you for your response. I have replied on my talk page. --RFBailey 23:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging for Image:Jouy-le-Moutier blason.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Jouy-le-Moutier blason.jpg. However, the copyright tag you've used is deprecated or obsolete, and should not be used. This could be because the tag is inaccurate or misleading, or because it does not adequately specify the copyright status of the image. For a list of copyright tags that are in current use, see the "Public domain", "Free license", and "Fair use" sections of Wikipedia:Image copyright tags.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 03:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Templates[edit]

As you know, i created the controversial templates on Greater Manchester, Merseyside and the West Midlands

I have now started to replace these with less controversial ones, just focussing on Manchester, Liverpool and Birmingham city centres (see relevant stations). Could i ask for your opinion on these? Simply south 18:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you post links for them ? [[template:template'sname]], cheers, Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 18:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done

Template:Manchester city centre stations - have a feeling this might be controversial as unsure about Salford
Template:Liverpool city centre stations - not yet placed
Template:Birmingham city centre stations

Simply south 18:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see any problem other than their width, try imposing a width of arround 600pixels which seems to be the norm. Good work, Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 18:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do i do that? Simply south 18:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want me to do that for you ? Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 18:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK Simply south 18:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmh it seems you've formated these boxes a bit strangely, do you mind if I change the code a bit, won't change their look but will help to customise them? Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 18:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead. I just do basic template [would they count as being in my own unique style?:)] Simply south 18:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Bit wide, but you can fill in the box with more local stations and by adding images, see Template:Sheffield closed stations Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 18:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Am i allowed to freely copy images from one article to another or is there a process involving inserting images? Simply south 18:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can insert more of less any image in templates, so long as they are not fair use. To insert the images, add a column before and after your main title and add align="center"| Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 19:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dead links[edit]

The Stagecoach Group article was cleared up recently to remove a lot of dead links in line with the policy Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context. I assume you have the intention to create the articles you resinstated the links to? If not, then what purpose do they serve, other than to wait an indefinite period for someone to create round them? --Ayrshire--77 20:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No links that were red linked were off topic so I do not see where this convention should be observed in this case and the clearing you mention goes against Wikipedia conventions in this case. The convention surrounding red links is to purposely add red links as to create new articles for subjects that are not yet talked about. I originally had no intention to create the articles linked in but I did create the couple of stubs. In no occasion should you remove red links unless they link to an off topic or irrelevant topic, which non did. I will indeed add red links to that article as to encourage editors to create articles on companies Stagecoach has bought. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 20:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page comments[edit]

Please do not move comments made to you on your talk page onto discussions like that at Talk:MS King of Scandinavia. The merge discussion is for discussing the merge, not making personal statements, justified or otherwise. Placing the comments there makes it very hard to take seriously your statement that it is not a personal vendetta - as you yourself said, "personal comments can be omitted". JPD (talk) 09:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No offence but I have no clue who you are and what you're referring to as I have directed no comments against any user in the discussion you mention. You will see included a bland statement asking for a restriction on personnal comments, PoV and or attacks against myself which included information directly relevant to the merge proposal. Regards, Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 10:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am referring to this edit, where you added a request from RFBailey and your reply, which originally came from your talk page. I have removed it, as it had nothing to do with the merge proposal and gets in the way of other people such as myself trying to join the discussion. JPD (talk) 10:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree these might not actually not involve the merger proposal but I fail to see where I've made any personnal attacks. I've clearly asked RFBailey not to pursue his course of accusations. If you cannot see that then I'm afraid I have little to tell you. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 11:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not wish to discuss whether or not you made any personal attacks. I described the comments as "personal statements", and asked you to keep them on User talk pages, and not insert them in the merge discussion. I am not asking you to tell me anything, simply explaining why I removed the remarks and asking you not to include such comments or requests again. I hope this has not caused any offence, and we can continue more fruitful discussions elsewhere. JPD (talk) 12:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So is that it ? gosh, blimmey, you didn't have too, all you had to was to add a summary in your edit. I've got his comments in my trollbox anyway ! And personnal comments are usually comment to a person, so you may understand why I thought that... Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 12:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't understand. The discussion that you added consisted of a personal request from RFBailey asking you to stop being rude to him, and a personal reply from you asking him not to make personal attacks. Whether either of these are considered personal attacks, they are definitely personal comments and don't belong there. This is all I meant by the phrase. I am sorry that you are disturbed by my effort to explain what I was doing and discuss it with you. I am getting the impression that you easily misunderstand people and think they are attacking you. I personally would find your labelling of good faith requests as trolling much more offensive than anything RFBailey has said to you. If you are serious about avoiding personal vendettas, I would strongly advise not having a trollbox. JPD (talk) 16:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anything i consider rude, unappropriate, missplaced goes into my trollbox, and you parcimonious and pompous aren't far from going there. If standing by my opnion and having integrity is a vendetta, then call it that way, it still isn't one and if someone makes no effort to read other contributors' then no wonder such comments are yours. None of your contributions in the merge proposal are consistent with a lenghty analyse of the situation or lecture of all comments on the page. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 18:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Labelling missplaced, inappropriate, or even rude, comments as "trolling" can be quite offensive and is definitely contrary to WP:AGF. It is not necessary to have a trollbox to have integrity and stand by your opinion. Having such a page can look like a personal vendetta, and even if it isn't, it is definitely not a good way to avoid people having a vendetta against you. I stand by my opinion that it would be a very good idea to remove it. I also stand by my comments regarding the merge, which have simply been explaining my understanding of the policy regarding names. The comments on the page do not give enough evidence for me to have an opinion on how the policy should apply in this case. I might end up agreeing with you if you address the points I made. JPD (talk) 10:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yorkshire[edit]

As a Yorkshireman you should be more wary of the metropolitan counties such as "South Yorkshire" (a contradiction in terms in it's own right!) as the Local Government Act of 1972 was used to steal away large portions of Yorkshire to the control of other local government areas, and Yorkshire has never fully recovered from the damage (made apparent by the naming of the region as Yorkshire and the Humber and it being lumbered with a large part of Lincolnshire, yet not all of Yorkshire). Yorkshire is over 1100 years old and has never been an administrative county in any form: as such can not be affected by local government reform. They can tek our local government, but they'll ne'er tek our freedom! Yorkshire Phoenix 08:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for using the edit summary as well as your talk page. Doncaster is in Yorkshire (see List of places in Yorkshire#D). A full breakdown of local government arrangements and their changes over the years is available in the Doncaster article: other pages referring to Doncaster's whereabouts should use NPOV and avoid controversy. Yorkshire Phoenix

PoV was never an issue when editing back South Yorkshire. It was a mere statement of the fact that Donny is in SY ... So much as Sheffield, Rovvrum and Dingleland, as much as we might hate the People's Socialist Republic of South Yarkshire, it is here and we live in it. In the case of the Doncaster Tramway article, England is more appropriate. Cheers, Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 10:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad we agree about the Donny Tramway article. Using local goverment terminology such as metropolitan counties to describe a town's location is controversial: especially when it relates to Yorkshire, which was never an administrative county anyway but has been a Kingdom, a semi-autonomous Earldom, BBC and ITV region, &c. Yorkshire Phoenix 10:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Autoroutes[edit]

Why are you linking to A6 autoroute and A10 autoroute, which are disambiguation pages, as there is more than one of each? --SPUI (T - C) 15:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

there is only one autoroute 6 and autoroute 10 ... There is also one autoroute 1 to 999 and one of each only. There are on the other hand several A6 and A10 but they weren't wikilinked. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 23:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Luxembourg has an A6 autoroute, and Quebec has an A10. Please stop. --SPUI (T - C) 00:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I beg your pardon ! Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 08:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Capitan Scarlet[edit]

Hey, shouldn't "Captain Scarlet" be in red, and "the Mysterons" be in black? 'The Mysterons" is more eye-catching as it is : )

Cheers --THEPROMENADER 07:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some code for you, sir.

Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons

cut n' paste if you like it : )

THEPROMENADER 16:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inner/outer[edit]

We don't use sud/nord/est/ouest, and so we shouldn't use exterieur/interieur when an English alternative - outer/inner - is available. These are used on some beltways in the U.S. - see [2] and [3]. --SPUI (T - C) 11:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My issue isn't with a translation of French to english but the use of the official name. The clockwise lanes are the Boulevard Périphérique Extérieur and the counterclowise lanes are the Boulevard Périphérique Intérieur. The aren't nouns but the actual names of what are described in the articles, inner and outer are accurate per say but only factual rather than correct, the US beltway naming is irrelevant in the case of any road out of the US. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 11:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I mean it. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 12:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you're so hung up on official names, why are you suggesting the name of "N15 nationale"? --SPUI (T - C) 12:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not cleanup[edit]

Your "cleanup" made the exit number column rather wide, and put the A10 image by itself on the top line for no reason. --SPUI (T - C) 12:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your previous edit labelled cleanup superimposed several layers of text and images, I removed that by imposing break lines and avoiding layered text and images; that's a clean up. A logo is conventionnally positionned to the left, but it is a mere convention I'll grant you that. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 12:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What browser are you using? My edit used standard mediawiki markup and looked fine in K-meleon. As for the logo, there is no convention to place it to the left. --SPUI (T - C) 12:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Konqueror, Firefox and IE... The convention exits, you are unaware of it. I Mean It Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 12:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show me said convention? A simple look at articles with logos - Microsoft, Google, Illinois State Toll Highway Authority - shows them all on the right. --SPUI (T - C) 12:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freeway[edit]

You say "Do not use redirected links." This is wrong; see Wikipedia:Redirect#Don't fix links to redirects that aren't broken. --SPUI (T - C) 08:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've missread the page, it is not said that it shouldn't be done, only that there is no apparent need for it. There is no need to purposely link to an article that does not exist after the redirect has been put in place, I believe the guideline only applies for articles that already had a link to an article now redirected. It's a lot like creating a redirect page and then consistently linking to them: That's wrong and downright stupid, see Ax (France)... Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 08:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're misreading it. Redirects are there to be useful. As that page says, "Most especially, there should never be a need to replace [[redirect]] with [[direct|redirect]]." --SPUI (T - C) 08:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yopu've misreadme (twice), I am telling you there is no need to create a link to a redirect page while you're saying there is no need to replace one. Read carefully, I choose my words carefully to be understood, providing one reads my edits fully rather than overviewing. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 08:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know exactly what you're saying - you're wrong. If I link directly to Orlando, FL, that is perfectly acceptable. --SPUI (T - C) 08:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you do not know about the three-revert rule, please familiarize yourself with it, as you are about to break it on freeway. --SPUI (T - C) 08:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have not reverted three times the same article... Different edits have been made in between and have been retained. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 08:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted freeway three times; if you revert again you will be over the limit. --SPUI (T - C) 08:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have not reverted the article three times, I have deleted a specific passage of the article whilst leaving further addition to the article made between the article. See the definition of reverting an article. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 09:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those are partial reversions, which are still covered by 3RR. --SPUI (T - C) 09:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it's a matter of PoV, since I believe your (badly linked) edit was badly formatted. And that you've obviously accepted my latest edit... All of this because you refused to see that the term could be better explained and that you also broke the 3RR in the prossess. It's much better now so until your next contestable edit, good day. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 09:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You should have explained it better initially rather than reverting. --SPUI (T - C) 09:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know more on this than I do, I offered you the chance to edit in something less figurative since clearly you have a keen eye on the subject. I edited it at the end since you didn't quite get that. I'm not here to tread on other's gardens, if you have a field of expertise or interest I'd rather see you edit on these subjects, only If i see your edits and I, as another Wikipedian, am happy with these (like any other Wikipedian). Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 11:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to skip over you[edit]

Thanks for your "peacekeeping" intervention this afternoon, and I'm sorry to have skipped over it in seemingly ignoring you. Wasn't the case! I think we both know how I am when my goat is gotten, so apologies : ) THEPROMENADER 16:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problems, I was hoping for an unequivoquial peac agreement between you two and in this case, Hardouin struck first, alas. As you can see we all have our little demons (see above). Sorry if I haven't replied to your colour question a few topics above, I haven't had time to reply to it although I did think about it. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 16:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Geographical naming conventions[edit]

Thanks for your contribution to the debate on User_talk:Yorkshire_Phoenix_(194.203.110.127)#Geographical_naming_conventions. I've finally got around to posting a reply. Yorkshire Phoenix (talk • contribs) 14:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings captain[edit]

quiz this evening? Davidwil 10:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, and I have a surprise for you hehehe Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 10:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man, you know why Hillsborough is thusly called? Davidwil

It's a borough on a hill ? Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 12:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stay away from things you know shit about[edit]

You don't know anything about Nivå. My father was killed in the gang war on November 4th, how dare you edit my contributions, you french piece of "merde".

Tallest structures...[edit]

Salut captain, ô capitain...

Thanks for your input into the "tallest structures" discussion - but to be frank, I didn't entirely get your meaning... could you elaborate?

To tell you the truth, "metropolitan area" doesn't even matter in this discussion - it is the "in Paris" that is wrong, as 70% of the buildings in the article are not at all in Paris. I've asked for documented "proof" that these buildings are indeed "in Paris", and have been waiting almost a week now, but in (predictable) lack of this I will be putting the article back to its "Paris region" state - most likely this weekend. If I get your meaning, Île-de-France is the next administrative step up from "Paris", so you the article should be titled with this? "Paris region" is that too. If you do support this it would be helpful if you put in a word on the article talk page - it would be good to add consensus to reason and fact as reasons for change. But if you don't want to get involved, fact is overwhelmingly more than enough to justify a move. Thanks! THEPROMENADER 11:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But already thanks a million for the "Follow local conventions" naming conventions link - this sums it up perfectly. Thanks! THEPROMENADER 11:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you like the link, It's quite explicit even though France isn't specifically mentionned, IdF should generally be used for Paris related things. don't serenade me or i'll start getting used to this! I thought you guys were still on about aire urbaine and aire metropolitaine which is really quite subjective and fairly imaginary. I randomly had a read of your talk pages and yeh, more bickering but thought I'd give it a go like I do now and agian. I myself am quite happy in my little end of the world, still expanding french stations (with proper naming unlike Hardouin's world of inappropriately named francilian stations...). I think it's best if you use that page of Wikipedia guildeline rather than me sticking my nose in it ;) I'm sure you'll find it useful and informative and maybe, say if chickens gorw teeth or if cows jump over the moon then you who must not be named will get the point ? Enjoy. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 12:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paris 3RR[edit]

...thanks for jumping in there for me, it was quite kind of you to think of seconding my position in this. There's no arguing that I did revert four times, but it is also arguable that the first three times were, since they were barring a forced reinstatement of long-proven error, could be seen as... eliminating vandalism? This is vague, but my reverts were justified and proven so. As for the fourth, this as well was vague... but justified as well, and this besides the almost certain sock-puppetry. This was a real between-the-chairs situation, n'est-ce pas? Anyhow, thanks again and cheers. THEPROMENADER 14:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Son of "Tallest structures"[edit]

Hello, Captain.

I'd much appreciate your vote - I've recently opened a request for move for List of tallest structures in Paris in an effort to a) cut things short and b) open the inaccuracy of the issue and lack of fact in opposing arguments to outside view and opinion and c) return the list to its former state once moved. This is yet another molehill becoming a mountain for sure. Your wisdom would be much appreciated, thanks. THEPROMENADER 09:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for your vote, it seems we share the same line of reasoning. Would it be possible though to make yourself a little clearer though? You support a move, but oppose my choice of a name, is that it? I can say though that "Paris region" is the official translation of "Île-de-France" as per the Wiki naming conventions link you showed me. I have really no preference for a 'final name' - anything covering the agglomeration will do. "Paris agglomeration" is cool, even "Paris metropole" makes sense... but "Paris" alone? Inaccurate. THEPROMENADER 10:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I indeed support the move but oppose the propose alternative name. According to Wiki naming conventions lists, articles in general are if needed to be sorted by geographical region. Paris region is la région parisienne which nothing more than a notion rather than a definable term. Île-de-France is not interpretable it is what it is and is simple. Paris region is what you want it to be which is one of the sources of many arguments past and ongoing ;). All lists that I edit are sorted in geogrpahical regions, List of SNCF stations in Limousin and not List of SNCF stations in the Limoge region. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 10:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, fair enough - you're even stricter than me! But with your vote stated as it is, the page is going to stay right where it is because it's only the move itself you've opposed. THEPROMENADER 10:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, i suppose I am. Mmmmh for a different move to be edited a different proposition needs to be made, no ? I have already stated I only support a move to a strictly geographicaly accurate list naming. I can if you want, or you may do that as well, make a counter proposal. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 11:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure how that would work - two move proposals for the same article? Would it at all be possible to try to garner a conclusion about a proper name within the ongoing WP:RM ? I will agree to any name that accurately encompasses the article content. THEPROMENADER 12:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's been seen before, why not propose List of tallest buildings and structures in Île-de-France. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 12:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, sir, after you - if you'd so care to make that proposition yourself. It would be too odd that one contributor make two different propositions, n'est-ce-pas? I may get intense at times but I'm not schizophrenic : ) THEPROMENADER 13:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oooooook then, I understand there is also thee who shall not be named in the equation... Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 14:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done, see here: Talk:List of tallest buildings and structures in Paris#Counter move proposal, Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 14:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see you and have seconded. While I was out I see the usual predictable fact-muddling got there first. I did my best to make things clear all the same. What do I have to, provide yet another list of references? This is getting ridiculous, like banging your head against a brick wall. Actually a brick wall would be more comforting, because in this case all there is in opposition is hot air. THEPROMENADER 17:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning. After a bit of thought, I still think I have reason enough to try to convince you - are you sure that you wouldn't vote for "Paris region"? I is absolutely certain to be the official English translation of "Île-de-France" - have a look at http://www.parisregion.fr. Not that it would help anything - that vote has been corrupted by what seems to be yet another sock puppet - and dampened by someone voting against an inexistant 'protocol breach' without even looking at fact. Some days Wiki seems worthwile, some days... THEPROMENADER 06:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya. I'm afraid I can't back a move to Paris region as I am quite certain Paris region is not the translation of Île-de-France. Paris region is the translation of agglomération or région parisienne, that's how it was when I last lived there. I've made my point of respecting convention and using region names, not nicknames. Paris region offers too much interpretation and I know that he who shall not be named will more or less vote no to anything else than his own proposition whatever the proposition may be but I'm sorry to say that I'm standing my ground on this. It's hard to do anything with editors such as he who shall not be named in any case. Paris region is better than Paris, but it's not good enough. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 08:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you can't blame me for trying to stretch things as far as possible to make evryone happy. I see your point though. FWIW this morning I've asked other 'locals' to add their point of view to the issue - instead of everyone having to take advice and references from a stupid ignorant foreigner like me : ) Isn't it odd that, were my position false, I would seek the advice of the knowledgeable locals who risk most undermining it? On the other hand, 'He who would (like to) be deemed Most Knowledgeable' is seeking but foreign ignorance and talking cruft. I'm sure quite confusing for other uninformed contributors, an atmosphere that has not remained unexploited for still foggier ends. Anyhow, point taken, and yes, keep it simple is best. THEPROMENADER 10:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at List of highrise buildings in Birmingham, UK and following explanative link to Birmingham that led in turn to a quite clear explanation of what not to call Birmingham at West Midlands conurbation, I am quite certain now that you are quite correct. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 12:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear it ;) I was merely using a bit of common sence and avoiding terms and wordings that would avoid an ambiguity. We were already in agreement and this example will be good to show what is accurate and precise and what isn't. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 13:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ps: Great. Not sure if you noticed but I left you something upstairs this morning. I put my code where my suggestion was : ) THEPROMENADER 13:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bloody hell. I'm having second thoughts. Today I was finishing up one IDF plan for personal use (but uploaded a version here - on my personal page) and pasted a few numbers on it from that skyscraper article (just to make things clear what's where) - and in doing this I see that "in Île-de-France" would be the most correct name for this the towers list, but that doesn't mean "most fitting" - "Paris" is much too small to cover the content of this article, but "Île-de-France" is much too big (but I just saw that silly Hardouin has gone and added added even bigger "metropolitan area"-s everywhere). Although it is much used in French, but never used in English, I really think "Paris agglomeration" would best describe what's in this article. Unfortunately there is no official name for the Paris agglomeration, no entity, no governing body, and not even any association. All the same, would it be so bad to call the article "Tallest buildings and structures in the Paris agglomeration"? Paris has its a*s so stuck between to chairs as far as its unnamed demographic growth is concerned that I think it quite warrented to make an exception to 'strict' Wiki conventions. Any thoughts on this? THEPROMENADER 19:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agglomeration is good, in French, not english. I understand the term, I use it all the time, but in French. The reason I proposed naming the article and indeed any future article with IdF is that i t removes all possibility of arguments and debate. Obey the guideline, it's there for a purpose, it's simple and it's correct. Now we can argue even more to agree on an english acceptable word; Paris Inner Belt (Petite Couronne), Seine (Former departement of Seine, encompassing Hauts de Seine, Val de Marne, Paris and Seine Saint Denis). Or we can just put Ile de France and be done with it. That'smy part done, if you children can't agree, well that's another story, get some arbitration and stick to it. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 08:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may have noticed that in all banter you are the only person willing to talk rationally about this; that is my only goal here, and I thank you for it. Don't let the heat get to you : ) THEPROMENADER 08:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, as per the Wiki guidelines let's stick to your "Île-de-France" until a better solution can be found - true that this is the only solution both factual and 100% within guidelines. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 09:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move complete. I left seven days instead of the customary five, but no further votes came. We've done everything by the book, for the book, so normally this should be the end of it. Thanks for your insight through all this on things both France and Wiki. THEPROMENADER 06:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice one. And you're welcome. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 07:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted as usual, and blocked in its former state to boot. As a lucid and unbiased local, it would be kind of you to put a word in about the fact of the matter once again for the ears of the uninformed admin in question. Thanks. THEPROMENADER 14:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tallest structures[edit]

Forking is not a way to avoid having to seek consensus. --ajn (talk) 16:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hum - I completely understand your frustration, but that was a bit 'over the top'. I am partly to blame for getting you involved, so apologies. You have helped a lot in presentinig a factual case, and even concluded the affair in that respect, and I see little else we can do in face of the 'unreferenced opposition' - but we still have to stay within the rules. I may seek some consensus on French Wiki, but this seems a waste of time when opposition is one and factual confirmation is readily available. Perhaps this is my fault for making this into a consensus issue - but short of that it would have been just a revert war. I think we can still keep it to fact.

What is most deplorable is the low contributor traffic of the French Wiki articles - that some have remained unchanged since months, and that one is enough to oppose change on others. Easier to have consensus on Pokemon than Paris - it's for that I most appreciate your help, as I could not do it alone. Still, in spite of the hardships, let's stay calm : ) THEPROMENADER 18:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's face it, everytime something intelligent, coherent, logical must be done, if there tw*t involved, nothing'll be done and a stale mate where a complete and utterly absurb (to remain polite) situation will arise for no bloody reason. He cannot be for real, actually thinking he's right, he must be doing it coz he can't stand the look of either of us. Or he's got problems. I don't want to see that guy ever again. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 18:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

You have a week off. Please read WP:CIVIL and WP:POINT. --ajn (talk) 19:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice of you for telling me in such a civil manner... Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 22:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. My first inclination, based on your behaviour in the past, was to block you for a month. You're lucky I was in a good mood yesterday. --ajn (talk) 09:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If only you knew. If I was you really I'd take a few minutes at least and look at the history of some protagonists. I've never been blocked nor do I have a history of PA other wikipedians. Yet the member facing me has half his talk page full of annoyed editors. It's up to you, people don't change, what you see now will happen again. Not because of me, but because of him. Only next time it won't be with me, it'll be with yet another wikipedian, wrongly accused and blocked. It's hard to arbitrate when you don't 1/ ask for explainations or 2/ look at the history of argument.. No offence, but you've missed the culprit on this one. Unfortunately, for the reasons I've etirated above, the incident is not closed but for other reasons your actions demonstrate. Cheers, Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 10:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm waiting. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 18:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tallests structures in... aaaaaaaaaargh.[edit]

This past week was indeed an insane one. A simple issue blown all out of proportion between a fog of delusion intended to create a new reality and contributors who don't understand (or don't care to) what the (expletive) we're arguing about. I'm not sure if you've been reading, but the final 'consensus' was to maintain inaccuracy for the 'better understanding' of the ignorant. Problem is that anyone ignorant reading that article will remain so even when he is done - how is one ignorant to know that Levallois-Perret isn't really "in" Paris as the article title states, especially with the foggy language that does its best to avoid any mention of Paris' real borders? All it takes is a look elsewhere after reading that article and - "hey, that's not in Paris!" - Wiki looks pretty ridiculous. Perhaps it was a) your blowing your lid and b) my exasperated tone that caused the above decision, but it certainly wasn't fact alone.

I'm going to let this lie a bit until I figure out what to do - 70% inaccuracy is not 'pedantry', I'm only sure you'll agree. More knowledgable input is needed for a knowledgable consensus based on fact (or in other words, a 'real' consensus) - should this be found on the French pages? I'll probably end up looking there. I'll also end up also marking the talk page for the inaccuracy with the proper template until it is resolved.

In all the arguments a few good points did come out - namely that the Île-de-France is Paris' Greater London or Sydney. Paris is very badly placed to play the "tall erection" game, as not only is it flat, but it is being outdistanced as an agglomeration by its next-biggest all-encompassing administrative entity whose name is not its own.

I know you find conflicts such as these disagreeable, so sorry for the above. I am also sorry that only a few articles I would like to contribute to a) remain in a sorry mess because of the low knowledgable editing traffic b) take up all my time because of the constant one-on-one shenannigans made possible because of the same. Perhaps I should wait until knowledgable contributions increase and remain constant enough to definitely quell the nonsense - but who's going to start this flow, and how long to wait? A few questions I'm asking myself. A few small affairs here are taking up way too much of my time.

Anyhow, looking forward to your return,

THEPROMENADER 23:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'll go with my first idea: not to edit anything that Hardouin does. whatever the issue, the will be one because the guy does not know what he's on about. I've learnt to read his talk page and read the multitude of complaints he receives (then deletes). Next article I'll create will be Matlock Tramway, a cable tramway in the town of Matlock, in Derbyshire. At least I know that with a subject such as that one no ignorant fool will contribute to it. At lest I've said what I wanted to say, the admin knows he was shortsighted or at least knows I told him he is. All in all, since I contribute to 4 Wikipedae and the Commons, I don't miss it here ;) See you later, Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 07:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Owch, that would mean that I'd be alone against both those who would maintain ignorance and those who would ignore both reality and rules to better play the "big city erection" game. Perhaps I should follow your example, but Paris is one of the few of my specialties that Wiki can use, and the Paris pages are precisely those that have been corrupted by a single contributor and his unreferencable and unshared point of view. What makes the problem with the contributor in question worse is that he knows full well the falsity of his claims, so has only manipulation (de l'ignorance d'autrui) and bullying to buy time and keep his point in place. This is both disruptive and against the interests of Wiki to say the least.

I'm probably going to open another WP:RfC on the issue at the same time as making the factual inaccuracy known with an appropriate tag. In the meantime, time to clear my head with other things. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 10:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm y book I have no time for him. If you also go your won way and look more into your hobbies and personnal interests then some admin or a new wikipedian will him or herself see how much of a load of crap the one who must not be named has been editing in. You have missed the Transilien argument a while ago haven't you ? Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 19:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did have the pleasure of missing the transilien argument - most of it. Are those two still insisitng that the Transilien does not include most of the IDF's RER lines? (checking)... by the infobox, no, but by the text, yes, because there's still no mention of RER lines. That is yet another article that could be clarified for sure. Not my area though.

There's simply not much English-speaking 'France' traffic yet - so these pages are easily squatted. Wouldn't it be a good idea to get a French-school English course editing English Wiki pages on France? Or English students studying French history? Even high-school wisdom would be enough to do away with 'would-be knowledgable' fairy-tales.

You may be right. Even discussing Eiffel tower copyright intricacies is more pleasurable than battling. I'm also doing some translation from French. But it pains me to leave the Paris pages the way they are, especially when I know that, should I quit, the next one in line will just have to do all the same again - another year of nonsense? At least now we're down to two-word exchanges - we've gone the rounds so often. THEPROMENADER 21:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I couldn't keep from making a few obvious corrections - provided references for them too. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 22:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Loved the pinball analogy on the TSIP page. "Take 54" indeed : ) thepromenader 13:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Héhéhé. I check User:Hardouin's contribution list now and again; you never know, and noticed a newchapter on the TSIP talk page. I couldn't help but notice a blatant contradiction with what he told us weeks ago. you can't advocate something, change justification and contractict yourself so evidently, hoping that no one will notice. I could use a quote from him to ask for yet another move with such a strong sentence as his. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 14:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to risk sounding façile, it would seem that the contributor in question is capable of quite anything if it means, right or wrong, getting his own way. Unfortunately having the last word while being clearly wrong is not synonymous with worth - from the point of view of others, that is. I'm sorry to say this but it may become necessary to work as a group in this - individual reason and fact is not enough. Sometimes arguments don't even matter, because this person's favourite tactic, when reason seems to be taking hold in a discussion, is to try to drown any intelligent discourse in a flood of incoherent dialogue. The most bothersome part of all this is that this person knows perfectly well the fact of the matter.

I hope you will bear this out, and to help 'keep it simple' I suggest keeping answers to a minimum length and based on fact. I'll do my best to follow my own advice, anyhow. Cheers. thepromenader 17:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I am glad to see someone else asking all the right questions. Let's move past that though: It is silly to wait for a single stubborn wikipedian to provide 'proof' of the unprovable. Instead please help in choosing a proper name - I'm afraid to say, my friend, that I've opted for the "Paris region" option once again for its 'English recognition' factor, the fact that it is an official translation of IDF, and it literally means 'in the Paris area' to those who don't know any better - all bases covered. I hope you'll agree this time. You know, a solution for 'in the IDF' would be to have a redirect there to "in the Paris Region" - yes I know the opposite is possible too. But anyhow. Thanks once again. thepromenader 22:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back[edit]

: ) ThePromenader 10:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Poor administratorship meant that you did welcome me back when you shouldn't have had too. Wink wink, nudge, nudge. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 11:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Say no more, say no more : ) ThePromenader 11:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Departments template[edit]

My only role in those templates was a) making a more modern 'closing' version and b) making them look pretty. By all means, do as you think best!

If any more 'French gov' templates need modernisation/prettifying in the same way, just let me know - I've got all the code stored away.

Best,

thepromenader 10:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was just puzzled at why régions' capitals had a navigational template and départements préfectures hadn't. I'm saying this in light of the fact that regions have little importance and inpact on everyday life whilst départements do; administrative taks done at a préfecture du departement or mairie de commune d'un departement. If you don't mind the change, I'll see which other Wikipedians have had an inpact on the template and see what they say. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 11:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a second - do you mean Template:Regions_of_France ? This could be updated too if you like. thepromenader 10:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, that one is fine and appropriate as far as I can see. Région > Région template. Préfectures though should have a préfecture template, not a regional capital one. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 11:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By "update" I meant 'beautified' : ) If you like the gold that is. thepromenader 11:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I'm not with you on this. That or is you know who involved in this ? Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 12:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

??? You lost me too. No matter who is or isn't involved... it's just what to do. Actually I have no idea who did what. We must sound like a Marx brothers sketch now : )

If I understand correctly, you want to exchange the "departments" template with the "prefecture" one in Prefecture articles. I say you're the boss as far as that decision goes - you don't have to ask me for anything. Kind of you to do so, all the same. thepromenader 12:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm lost too, I don't understand your sentence By "update" I meant 'beautified' : ) If you like the gold that is. I thought you meant that he participated and would obviously require his divine acceptance of the change (he who must not be named). Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 12:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, let's not give undue importance : ) I've just updated the template in question to match the others and that's the end of the story for me - you are free to do as you will ! thepromenader 13:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

THere's nothing wrong with that template? What's that todo with préfecture navigational templates?

Say, can you perhaps link to the page you were talking about? I think I'm missing something here... thepromenader 13:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This one is fine Template:Regions of France. These two though; Template:Préfectures of départements Template:Préfectures of régions of France are misrepresenting. See the Template:Préfectures of régions of France is misguided in the sense that régions are administered by their capitals and don't do much other than sponge money of taxpayers, whereas préfectures which does not have a template is right on. From what I so in your original talk page concerning the first template, i was thinking of either replacing préfectures of régions or adding préféctures of départements. That and moving Guadeloupe and orverseas départements from régions into départements. I realise now that by proofreading the above; i can't type and i don't understand myself. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 14:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Grinning) Again, my role in the template work went no further than cosmetics, so please do as you see best. I think you are much better placed to decide, but if there is any doubt, why not put both templates? The very reason I updated these is for the "collapse" ("hide") feature that would allow *cough* more. Or those existing to take less space. Cheers! thepromenader 14:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, fair dooes. Iiiiiiiii'm off to see the wizaaaaaaard, the wonderful wizard of Ooooooooooz! I've lost it. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 14:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Increased Paris Page Traffic[edit]

Would you have any suggestions for attracting some knowledgable traffic to the Paris pages? All it would take is a few Parisian English-speaking locals to set things straight once and for all and bring a permanent end to the place-name shennanigans. It's not such a great problem for now. Lol, even school-children would know better. But do you know of any geography forums, or something of the like? Actually either French or English would do. I have yet to look extensively, but am asking that maybe in the off-chance you would know of something. Hey, I just remembered someone else I can ask too. Thanks if you do. thepromenader 18:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I know little people on Wikipedia, most of who are part of Wikiproject Sheffield and Wikiproject Trains. Sorry mate, i don't know anyone :( Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 22:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I was asking about 'off-Wiki' connections - no matter though, I may have found a taker through www.insecula.com. Thanks all the same : ) thepromenader 22:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The latest WP:3RR debacle[edit]

LOL, you actually followed that? I didn't even think to solicit aid, as the subject in question was so damn... petty. The subject is always the molehill in anything "Paris" : ) thepromenader 20:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I only had a brief look. Indeed I have both your and Hardouin's talk pages wathced so as I so the chapter titles, i knew something had come up. when I saw an edit summary saying your block was cancelled, I read more about it, and saw that it was a mistake, tankfully undone. welcome back again. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 23:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not berating you for looking - au contraire, look all you like! I've nothing to hide : ) (PS - new signature) THEPROMENADER 18:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naming Conventions[edit]

I'm going to try to bring an end to this "X is bigger than X" (or "X is concept of X (or "X is everyone's ignorance about what X really is")) name shenannigans once and for all by opening a wider debate on creating a fixed convention - I've taken it straight to the naming conventions page. You're welcome to participate. Nothing there yet as I've just put it up. If this doesn't fly it's off to the Village Pump. Time to fix rules instead of trying to fix users. thepromenader 11:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Erased messages[edit]

I have reinstated my messages in Hardouin's talk page once again. It is important that these remain because it seems that 'dear contributor' has emailed several administrators with (false?) accusations, and if there is to be an WP:RFC these are evidence of an attempted negotiation. What there is to be gained from such under-the-table tactics, I could not know. Anyhow, it is certainly worth considering WP:RFC - unless, as threatened many times, he does so first. I can only welcome this.

I did like the Confucius quote addition though - an unrecognized gentlemen indeed. THEPROMENADER 12:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What would you do in my case? This has gone over the border of ridicule. Time for an WP:RFC? Personally I would like Hardouin to do it himself - he's the one making the accusations, and I've been practically begging him to do it. THEPROMENADER 15:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well... It's a bit of a situation. I think Hardouin will not RFC you. If he does anything, he'll go to one of his admin buddies and winge. You know as well as I do that Haroduin has little source backing other than subjective and partial websites, it'll do him good to have his back to the wall under the scrutiny of his peers. Three outcomes: 1/ he'll stay the same and we must consider what disciplinary options we have 2/ he'll change and we're all best friends 3/ nothing happens. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 16:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course he won't RFC me - he hasn't a leg to stand on. I wouldn't say that he has any "buddies", but perhaps he's managed to talk some into seeing the "fault" he told them to see - but this will only work insofar as no-one looks further into the matter. In all, again, this is but another waste of time. I'll see what it takes to get this the attention it deserves. THEPROMENADER 17:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFC[edit]

A WP:RFC is really the only thing left to do. This contributor won't ever stop his bullying misbehaviour until he has 'final say' in any article he has ever edited, and especially when it comes to 'defending' unverifiable inventions of his own creation. His unhealthy obsession with myself doesn't improve the situation much either - I am a foreigner living in Paris sharing what I know with people of my own language, and the 'local' contributor in question quite often takes advantage of foreign ignorance to publish what he things reality should be - there will always be a conflict should he continue.

Yesterday another line was crossed: imagine hearing that you've been complained about for the very behaviour of the complainer himself. The pagewatch vigil was in its extremes as well - my message to you was 'intercepted' not thirty seconds after it was made. And what the hell does pasting "The base man is full of worries, but a superior man, never" on his personal page mean, on the same day he removed my (quite irate) messages? This obsession has gone too far; it is too targeted. This must end.

I thank you for your seconding me in this. It is unfortunate that there are so few 'factually aware' contributors who can also lend a hand - any confrontational discussion has always ended either in insult or a 'fog of irrelevent details' tirade few are able to follow. I have until now done my best to keep my article talk-page criticisms to the facts and what's written, but I think it's time now to call a cat a cat and speak of behaviour. Impartiality is a must for judging this; I hope we get something better in this regard this time than what we've had in the past.

I will be putting together the WP:RFC "case" this weekend - I have an already extensive collection of Hardouin's misdeeds on record (from an earlier WP:RFM and WP:3O), but there remains a bit of gathering to do for the nonsense over the past weeks, and especially around his latest WP:3RR block. I still think this is a huge waste of time, but if it must be done, if only to make more time and less worry for future edits, then so be it. THEPROMENADER 08:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added - this is problematic. From the RFC page : Before requesting community comment, at least two editors must have contacted the user on their talk page, or the talk pages involved in the dispute, and tried but failed to resolve the problem.

...the messages are no longer there. Antics like yesterday's 'remove' shennanigans probably explains the request for diffs; through Hardouin's talk page history there must be dozens of examples of reprimands/calls to order, and this by many users. I hope this is what they mean. THEPROMENADER 08:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To reply to your second edit, i do believe that is what is meant. I've already had a read of the page to see what the outcome and participation would be, a scenario planning if you may. To reply to your first question, ask yourself will the situation change? or will it remain the same or worsten. I think it can at best remain the same. As you've pointed out, onlya limited number of editors have noticed his behavioral problem. I would usually accept another editor reverting my changes on the grounds that I believe what I am told. The problem being that I usually only edit in what I am sure of, so if it reverted I look at the earlier version, in Hardouin's case, a step back to an unverified edit. I say go for it. His talk page has been blanked so many times, not only with your messages, and a look at its history is well worth it. Look at the history of his talk page before February/January, or just before his recent archiving (where his more than likely ommited to archive half his talk page), there is a list of grievances as long as my forearm. I'll back you up if it turns sour. Taketh careth. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 09:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right! Not only did he remove my last messages from his archives, he removed every message I have ever left on his talk page. All the expletives that came to my mind in seeing that were... most probably quite fitting. WP:RFC time for sure. THEPROMENADER 10:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The latest in silliness: Now I've been informed that we need consensus to overcome another contributor's inventive contributions - or the authorisation of adminstrators. Isn't there any rule against a single contrubutor obsessively defending his every edit whether its right or wrong? (added - this is of course complete nonsense) I wonder what would happen if I actually voted for removing it? How many of these silly battles are there now? Tallest structures, this... I've lost count. THEPROMENADER 14:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The RFC is coming along, but I'm having the damnedest time keeping it short. I'm also appalled at the image that the compiled list paints - it speaks of someone very unscrupulous, obsessed and underhanded indeed. I don't know if I should "lighten" it a bit - this all seems too serious for what it is. But presenting a half-baked case is no solution either. THEPROMENADER 09:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find the RFC on your contributions page so I can't comment. If you've been truthful, sourced and cited your comments appropriately, then I shouldn't worry. People will always have a feeling or an opinion on anything so their impression of your text is irrelevant so long as it is a true representation of Hardouin's actions. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 09:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still working offline in Simpletext : ) Like I said, it sounds 'too much to be true' so I'd rather keep it offline until I can tone it down a bit. I'm not sure if I can though. I'm also having a hell of a time finding all the messages that Hardouin blanked from his talk page. More time wasted for nothing. THEPROMENADER 10:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to ask you - what are your run-ins with User:Hardouin? Have you perhaps something to add to this too? So far I have accumulated evidence that about amounts to protectionism of all things "Paris", and namely the Paris page itself, but perhaps casting our net a bit wider would make a less selective case. I do already have examples of a total revert-war Hardouin imposed over a Mumbai infobox, but this was related to the Paris article. Care to fill me in? THEPROMENADER 10:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I'll be creating a sandbox for this soon, but for now I find it easier to flip between a webpage and simpletext - I have yet to transform links to a page state into links to diff 's... especially since the contributor in question blanked his talk page of every comment indicative of his own misbehaviour. A bit of a chore. THEPROMENADER 10:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have in the past been confronted to Hardouin with regards to stations used or traversed by the RER or Transilien branded rail services, or as he puts it Transiliens and RER. the issue was he wishes stations to bare the name of which service is uses the stations whilst I wished to do as the convention is and call all stations Gare de xxx as they are for british stations Xxx railway station'. No talk was possible and each and every edit was reverted without sourced justification other than It's not going to be that way. I have since created new complete articles for stations in IdF (example Gare de Pontoise) and cantonned myself to provincial stations (see Category:Railway stations in France). I was confronted with an uncoorperative editor and found myself forced to find another field of interest due to his stuborness. Unless I don't contribute to his RfC (which I will) I authorise you to quote my on this. Spectrum Is Green. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 10:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, more widespread "my edit" appropriation/protection. Although I understand the principle of the (Paris metro, RER and Transilien) addition, it is silly for two reasons - one, the entire RER network save a few stations IS the Transilien, and two, this is a misuse of disambiguation. You need to disambiguate the name of the station from the name of the town, and perhaps one station from another if there are two of the same name, but you don't put the service in the title - this is silly. Especially with the rapidity with which the IDF network is expanding/transforming. With what you disambiguate could be up in the air - but this should be decided through discussion, not by one person. THEPROMENADER 16:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS: personally I would use simply "Location (Gare)", and have the station services in the category and article. THEPROMENADER 16:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be putting everything online soon. I've a new page to add. THEPROMENADER 12:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As both you and Bob have asked about it, I've finally put the WP:RFC case online here. It's a mess, but once everything is found it won't be difficult at all to reorganise into a coherent case. Only "Paris" info is there for now, but I have more from other pages to add later. There's also the "tallest structures" debacle. Anyhow, if you want to add/change anything, please do. There's also a talk page set up to the same end there. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 10:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trollbox[edit]

...I would think it a good idea to get rid of this - it's not the most 'social' thing to have in your talkpage. It also prevents both you and the person with who you had differences to forgive each other and move on to a clean editing atmosphere. Please consider this. THEPROMENADER 09:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll forgive his actions once he changes... the trollbox is an excellent example of how not to behave on Wikipedia, it's a good read. I keep it and will supplement it with whatever selfrightous, selfcentrered, rude or inappropriate comment I'll be inflicted with, and use it in case of referral. It is no way there to show off the antics of these editors. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 09:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, I disagree. I think you should let people's actions speak for themselves - even if the acts concerned are offensive, grouping them under a "trollbox" title is not leaving onlookers a chance to decide for themselves - you have already done this for them. It's a Wiki equivalent of putting someone in stocks. The casual observer will not know the 'crime' nor the innocence of the matter as you do, so in general it looks bad to have this on your page. If every you have to refer to these acts, you will group them into a 'case' as I am doing now; until that occasion arrives, grouping them as such on your talk-page under that title seems a conviction without a trial. I hope you see me in this. THEPROMENADER 10:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feel somewhat of a hypocrite now, as with my "removed messages" sub-page I have a "trollbox" of my own... but it wasn't of my own motivation or creation for sure. Perhaps change the title of yours? Perhaps "special archive" or something? THEPROMENADER 15:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the WP:RFC I've set up a temporary page - it's a "trollbox" with a purpose, but I've called mine a "Harchive" : ) THEPROMENADER 13:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tallest structures - "Paris area"[edit]

I'm not sure if you've been following, but Metropolitan, john k and I have fallen into agreement over the title "List of tallest structures in the Paris area". I know that this is not a title following strict strict wiki standards, but I think this title would be much better than an inaccurate one. Category:Chicago_area_expressways and Boston-area_streetcar_lines are other examples of similar city-and-suburb-object-situation naming schemes. Would this have your vote too? it would be nice to end this, if not in perfection, in accuracy. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 13:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree on the title, but I'll vote for it since even if it is the wrong appelation it has the merit of being descriptively accurate. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 13:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you sir : ) Good to get another problem out of the way. I'll put it up to vote... have to see how first, I've never started one before. THEPROMENADER 14:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A few of us have managed to come into agreement over an "in the Paris area" title - as a former participant in the discussion, your views and vote on the matter would much be welcome at Talk:List of tallest buildings and structures in Paris. Thank you. THEPROMENADER 17:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair I had to leave the exact same message on all participant talk pages - without exception. Let's hope that commom sense and, surtout, verifiability win out here. If you know of anyone who can shed some knowlegable light and a vote on the matter it would be much appreciated. I should do the same. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 19:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL ! The vote is for the title "List of tallest buildings and structures in the Paris area". You voted against moving it there. Up to you though : ) THEPROMENADER 19:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was a mistake, I copy pasted (as I usually) the sentence from above. THINK GREG, THINK ! Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 19:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ThePromenader, a sock puppet! Ô tempora, ô mores! The accuser stands accused by the convicted! LOL - Not really - just more accusations as an excuse for another circus attempt to distract from fact. : ) This is getting unreal. Perhaps you could comment. THEPROMENADER 20:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your latest comment was rather straightforward, but the edit summary attached to it was hilarious. The situation to a tee. Thanks for the participation, and please continue to bring reason into this - you are one of few unfortunately. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 13:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The debate of some is just a series of contradicitons... worst than a François Mitterrand Government... I don't know... I might just it go, can't be bothered to care now. I'm sure 2 and 2 make 5 really, it's just a lie, a lie you hear me? Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 16:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you give up then the battle will be one-on-one again... very tiresome. We need the input of all the knowledgeable people we can get - otherwise those few bullies with a personal agenda/self-gratification mission will make Wiki a laughingstock to anyone knowing any better - making anyone's contribution pointless. It's up to wiki really, but lend a hand when you can - Tatsache über alles! THEPROMENADER 20:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above message has been followed and "exposed" on the "Tallest structures" talk page as a "personal attack". Of course all discussion of mediation was completely ignored in doing this, which would make it seem that the accuser does not want mediation to happen. Are you for mediation as well? This for sure would bring an end to the back-and-forth towards/away from fact - on this page at least. The rest will, I hope, be taken care of through the RfC. This all will end soon I hope. THEPROMENADER 07:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enough is enough - I opened a Mediation Cabal case this morning. As for the rest, it's for the RfC. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 08:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the personal attack ? Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 10:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is none. Someone obviously does not want mediation, and is trying to distract from any such motion. Or so it would seem.

I keep on looking to see whether the case will pass from "new" to "open" - they said it will "automatically be added after around 10min" but it's been more than an hour.... did I miss something? THEPROMENADER 10:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll rephrase myself, where is the suppoed perosnal attack. It's like I've been to bed and the whole world's collapsed... Again... I wouldn't worry about the Cabal, it'll happen, just be patient. :) We know you and I have nothing but noble intentions so we can only win. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 10:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a look at the "Tallest structures" talk page you'll see the latest addition and a link to your talk page. It was the "Well, if you give up then..." message that was indicated as being "naughty". Not impatient, just wondering if I screwed up. Bureaucracy is so tedious. THEPROMENADER 10:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was naughty. You are losing your cool over something that is really very trivial. Guy 19:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was pretty ticked off that day at being called a sock-puppet - over something so trivial. It's the triviality that gets me most - the fact of it all is so obvious. If Wiki wants to be a reputable reference then it has to publish to fact - but for now, in some of its articles, it is the only place in the world we can find certain information presented as it is here. This is what the 'laughingstock' bit was about. Being from the same region as I, and having the same interests, Captain scarlet knows full well the fact of what I speak, and for this I was able to be vague in targeting acts but no-one at all in particular. Please check the base of my argument before condemning me. THEPROMENADER 22:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caen[edit]

Est-ce que tu peut aller sur le Talk:Caen pour lire mes posts? 'Commune' n'a pas le meme sens en français qu'en anglais.. I fail to see what was wrong with my editing?? People who are not French cannot understand what 'Basse-Normandie' means.. pls see lower saxony.. There is also Wiki:Français, there I can understand, mais pas ici... SVP jete un coup d'oeil à talk page... Baristarim 16:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have already answered clearly on Talk:Caen in French as well in English. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 16:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ok, no worries, I will have a good look at the naming conventions.. Cheers!! Baristarim 23:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pah! c'est faux! Je connais bien Basse-Normandie et je suis Anglais! :o) Guy 19:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hormis un manque blatant de civilité, qu'y a t-il de faux ? Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 08:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He was joking, thilly : ) THEPROMENADER 08:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tallest structures Mediation Case[edit]

Please participate! [4] THEPROMENADER 07:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you could add a firsthand knowledgeable word about the fact of the matter it would be much appreciated. Thanks, Cap'n. THEPROMENADER 17:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to cut in there, but we had an edit conflict I neglected to comment. Apologies. Surtout, thanks for your continued input. THEPROMENADER 08:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not that it'll do much difference... Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 08:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what to do here. What we have is two Wikepedians trying to present an original point of view that goes against every encyclopaedia, map, government office, statistics office, newspaper, newscast and everyday common usage in existence; a view made for/acceptable only by the most ignorant of readers, as if they will never look at any other reference elsewhere. The question I constantly ask is: In light of this contrast, since the wikipedians in question live in the very area spoken of, how could they not know the fact of the matter? Rather than dwell on that angle (which may lead to reactions more 'personal'), for now I've asked once again that, instead of more talk-page theorising, that they prove that a majority of reference shows that "in the Paris area" is interchangeable with "in Paris". If this is again ignored then I think things may indeed degrade to questions of bad faith.

Can you, a former long-time inhabitant of the Paris region, summarise the motivations behind the push to make Paris' suburbs seem "Paris"? The reader does not care about such issues, only the author of such work seems to. I find it hard to outline this in terms that do not seem accusatory. THEPROMENADER 09:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a long time resident and born inhabitant of the said area, until you've told they are residents of the area I would have never guessed so. Their every word speak of people who've never been there... I've shouted, I've almost insulted, I can't slap, I can't swear... I can't chane their minds, nor will their change mine. Difference, map, government office, statistics office, newspaper, newscast, common use, people, fact agree with me...

I can't believe they believe a word they say is true, their case reeks of bad faith and point of vue. One could read It's wrong but I think it's true all over their words...

It's Île-de-France, or it's split! Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 10:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, okay. Can we go about this constructively though? Instead of arguing over one title or another (a debate that will certainly be muddled endlessly to prevent any move at all), it would be best, especially for the sake if mediation, to concentrate on the factual inaccuracy of the present title. Only with this out of the way can a discussion about "where" (to move) be constructive. THEPROMENADER 10:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All my arguments in the mediation case have been to make a point of the factual inacuracy of subjective terms other the administrative region all the buildings are situated in. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 10:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, and quite rightly so. But if in the same debate one party argues that the present name is inaccurate, another argues that it doesn't matter but a descriptive name would do instead, another argues that only an administrative name is the correct thing to use and another argues that the present name is "in concept" correct, we might as well join our hands and have a little circle dance into infinity, tra-la-la...

What I meant was: I think it would be useful to prove a) "in Paris" is inaccurate for the article as it is, and then b) decide on a name. This way we won't go in circles or fall back onto original arguments like there was no debate at all. Sorry if I wasn't clear before - cheers. THEPROMENADER 13:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't our mediator look into this would he just wait for us to tell him? I dunno, I'm a curious person, I look into things. I've already given him links to the articles of régions, depts and communes. One for Paris also ? Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 13:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right! Let's start a 'references' section at the bottom of the page - this way anyone can verify anything at any time. It will also incite others to provide references. I'm in the middle of uploading something but can participate later. All there is to do really is extract the references cited/used in earlier/other conversations and group them below. Cool. THEPROMENADER 13:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References section started. If you have anything to add, please feel free to - please do. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 19:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey y'all, what does "Ping, pong" mean? Excuse my bein' a stupid uninformed Westerner. THEPROMENADER 22:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ping pong is when you turn the table around and use an argument back at someone. Like someone making accusations and then saying they were forced into it when that same person started. Typical French ;) Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 06:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you've noticed the adding of out of topic links on the mediation page. Metropolitan has added private companies' website links that use Paris as part of their company name or approximate location. I've purposely added absurdly located companies' website links to show that anyone can have Paris in their name but not have anything to do with Paris (hotels in New York and Las Vegas spring to mind). Your links were spot on and I'm actually unimpressed with Metropolitan's efforts on this one. He's done some good stuff, but has sunk pretty low with that attempt. Any link to a companie located near or far from Paris with Paris as part of their name is pretty much off topic so I don't think that'll change much. Also be aware of their ellusive expressions such as city proper in stead of just city and metropolitan or urban area instead of conurbation. City proper being a Wikipedia invention to define the difference between what is and what is not inside city limits, which we can etirate in english without inventing new expressions. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 09:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please remove these links from the "references" section and place them somewhere of their own - perhaps as a comment? The references section is really for references - if we don't keep it clean those with bad faith will only see this as an excuse to corrupt it further.

Metropolitan's contribution is much worse than that - it was entirely non sequitur and purposely disruptive. I am getting sincerely sick of this, and am getting to the no-holds-barred level - this use of Wiki as a soapbox makes every contribution within seem pointless - how is a reader to tell the difference between fact and fiction, when it was his ignorance that brought him here in the first place? If a reader finds out later that what he read was crap, he may think the same of any other contribution.

Anyhow, providing a whole list of links to articles on the "Paris urban area" was non sequitur and wrong, and would seem a purpuseful effort to fog/disrupt the debate. For this I've moved to remove them - not sure if you second this. Coffee time 'cause I'm slightly steamed at the additional time wasted - I should be working already. THEPROMENADER 09:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, any comment on this would be helpful. THEPROMENADER 09:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I've already commented here and on the apge itself so I don't know what more to say than off-topic !! You were right to add the comments chapter, all I though of doing was indenting it. I've got to go and do some work... IT loves me. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 09:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now Hardouin is trying to remove comments on references from the "comments on references" section - and reverting to his removals in the bargain. I had mistakenly moved ALoan's comments (before I even started the "comments on references" section) and had placed them once again into the proper section - and he reverted that too. Can you look into this when you get the chance? Things are getting pretty pathetically petty again. THEPROMENADER 14:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Cap'n, but I had to strike out your references (hotels) because they were misplaced - the do not prove the "accuracy" of "in Paris", rather, the contrary! Had to do this to be fair - I trust you understand. No great loss though, as nobody is even looking there anymore - one would need a steam shovel to dig that deep. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 12:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Off course I don't, it was for that reaosn I had included them in the first place, showing the absurdity of such links as they nothing do with the debate, as did Metropolitan's. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 13:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By jove, I think I managed to put it in a nutshell. Have a look and see if it makes sense to you - before it gets buried. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 20:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, captain. I'm afraid to say that I'm not certain about the puppetry claim - I rolled back what must have been 20 of Hardouin's reverts over the space of ten minutes with a long comment attached - a whole chain of these would be quite remarkable in the "recent changes" page. Also, although the IP is a blacklisted one - if it is exploitable for spam, it can also be a proxy - I'm not so sure. But it's really not that important. What needs to stop is Hardouin's running around to admin talk pages with the baseless claim that the articles he reverted were somehow related to our mediation case - they aren't. Yet one admin did take on to this claim. In a way your post on the mediation page has helped to tie this in - I'm sure it will be exploited in this way. Anything but fact. Anyhow, I'm not so sure about that sock-puppetry message, but I don't think it will make much difference if it goes or stays. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 18:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heyup. I off course did abstain myself from accusing anyone of the such, i simply found handy that an IPed edit followed so quickly, even if it might appear on the recent changes page. What I felt was important is to at least not let it be forgotten. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 18:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I know you weren't accusing anyone. All I wanted to say was that the event is in no way related to our case. THEPROMENADER 18:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahoy. Since it's pretty obvious to even the most uninformed now (thanks to the visit of yet another knowledgable soul last night) that the present title must change, I've added a new table to the top of our debate including all our name choices thus far. If you could choose those of your liking - as many as you want - the most voted for wins. Perhaps we can decide something constructive for once. Thanks and cheers. THEPROMENADER 17:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your vote today sir. Here's hoping for a calm next few days : ) Take care. THEPROMENADER 20:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You seem pretty steamed today! I was a bit dismayed that you sniped at John k - if anything, he's been the most enduring/reasonable in this whole affair - I don't think he deserves the sort of attention you gave him. Nor can you blame anyone for wanting to find compromise - even if normally no compromise should be needed. I think it is already amazing that so many have held out this long against all the nonsense! I think the key here is "one step at a time" - let's just get the page somewhere more accurate than its present state.

BTW, I left a citation you might like in the references section there - I finally got around to installing the Britannica 2006 in my intel Mac today. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 21:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I bit at John coz he was coming out with crap. I've told you at the beginning, I'm not comprimising, one thing is right, another is wrong. I've not contributed to the debate to see every single bit of history and geography contested. I've also been forced to thoroughly edit that laughable piece of Paris region article of yours. I was disapointed when I read it, firstly due to its mere existence and its contents that don't exist. Unless you can prove that it is existant, it'll have to go the way of London region and become a redirect to Paris region. I've worked with you Promenader and I respect you but if you're come out with stuff like I don't know If you'll have much credibility in my eyes, especially if you keep on repeating Paris region is the translation of Île-de-France in French. Just no. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 21:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw that rewrite - why not finish the job? My promotion of "Paris region" is not only theory - what of the IDF website http://www.parisregion.com and its use in English reference ... (after looking) wait, you win a point there, as the only use of "Paris Region" I could find was in speaking of Economy... ??? Yet "Paris region" would be an accurate translation of région parisienne, would it not? I'm also certain that the governement does indeed use that term in its English -language communiqués. Am I missing something? THEPROMENADER 21:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

""Paris region" is a common and official translation of French "région Parisienne," today used to describe the Île-de-France administrative région."

...er, you're right, the above is sh*te. More for its lack of proper explanation than anything. Alright, point taken. But please go easy on everyone, okay? THEPROMENADER 21:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, but evne if Paris region is a translation of région parisienne, région parisienne is only used in light conversation. It's used mostly (PoV alert!) to describe the region where weekenders come from (naaa, I'm not biased -at-all). But yeh, sure I was tough on the guy, sometimes, a fist on the table and a bit shut up shouting clears the room. what are we debating here, what Paris region is or what the name for Paris region should be? Both questions we know the answers for, hence the RfC in the first place. I didn't agree to do this to debate about it, I participated to enforce it. Not because it is what I believe in, but because it is what it is.

It's hard to keep cool, none of this would have happened in the real life of the real world of real people... Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 22:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Our dear mediator has left a "last compromise" question - have you any answer to the matter? Cheers. THEPROMENADER 19:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Award[edit]

I hereby award this French Barnstar of National Merit to Captain scarlet for his interest (and patience) in the promotion of fact in all things Paris. THEPROMENADER 23:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, sir, for your kind and constant contribution to what should have been a simple affair. I sincerely hope to see more of your objective input and support in all articles of a similar nature. Thank you very much and bonne continuation.
THEPROMENADER 23:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Promenader, it hasn't been an easy ride. thank you for your input also. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 09:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please help with your shopping mall Infobox change[edit]

There are tons of articles that need updating. Since you changed Template:Infobox shopping mall, you need to fix the articles. If you don't have time or a good way to recruit people, I guess change it back, I don't have a good way to fix them all. Also, the template uses {{{name}}} for the image, but that field isn't part of the infobox. Do you think it should be {{{shopping_mall_name}}} or should the pages be changed? Thanks for your help! —Fitch 18:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{{shopping_mall_name}}} should be put in yes, that was an oversight, as for the template's use, there aren't as many as that, I'll update as many as I can, in lumps of 20 or so. There can be changed by the Shopping Centres articles' respective authors. what needs to be deleted from the articles is [[Image: and |thumb|pixelsize|caption]]. Just put the image name in without size or caption. The changes make the infobox a lot easier and simpler to use, and is used as I've edited in on many other templates. Cheers, Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 20:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Second the opinions of User:Fitch. If you are going to change the coding for the template, then you have to ensure that the appropriate fixes are applied to affected articles. Don't just put it off, or else other editors will be inclined to revert to the previous template.

--Madchester 17:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The 3RR rule applies for changes within a 24 hour bracket. It is both my role as well as the template's authors to implement updates on the articles that use the template. It is also preferable to update articles rather than reversing changes on the template's page, the easy option is to remove the template changes rather than spend time updating the articles... If you have contributed to the writing of the template you must see the advantages of the changes. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 18:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfree images[edit]

Hi, Image:X 4922 - Bernay 1986.jpg is not a free image, the article already has an illustration, and the "fair use" tag is deprecated and will go away soon, so I removed it from the article. Your best bet is to contact the photographer and get him to give it a free license, quite likely he'll agree. Stan 05:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Train Stations in Sheffield/SY[edit]

I'd already added/embelished existing articles about some stations that are proposed to be opening in the near future in Sheffield, and I've now added them to your template. I hope this is OK, if not, please do feel free to wipe away my good work :). Please see Don Valley Railway and the Don Valley Railway website. L.J.Skinner, talk to me 18:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that you have no sources, and although there are plans to reopen stations (as there are so many in the history of SCC) these plans are still at embryonic stage and should only be cited, rather than elaborated. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 08:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is the source! L.J.Skinner, talk to me 01:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

M27 motorway[edit]

I do not know where you obtained your plan, but the M27 has no junction 13 as comfirmed by the article and the sources linked to. Nuttah68 19:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please correct your M27 plan. Another user has added to the M27 talk page confirming, again, that the M27 has no junction 13 and included a link to the Highways Agency if you want to check. Nuttah68 07:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the plan will be kept as is as it is correct. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 09:10, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Streetmap which uses ordnance survey maps clearly shows it as part of Junction 12. I am afraid the plan is incorrect. Regan123 12:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Streetmap is not a reputable source Regan, neither is Googlemaps. Collins Road map of Britain are based on Ordnance Survey map data as stated in their publications, usually found page3. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 13:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted this also on the M27 talk page;

Plus, I notice the map is labelled Motorway 27. I can't think of many people who refer to it as that. S.I.s would refer to the M27 Motorway. In the same way that S.I.s usually refer to the A1(M) as the A1 Motorway, the Mxx or Axx refers to the route number, and is not actually short for anything. Plus, what are the copyright implications for the map? Is it derived from Ordnance Survey data (and would therefore be crown copyright)? Richard B 13:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, streetmap *is* a reputable source, at least at the 1:50,000 scale - because that is the Ordnance Survey Landranger mapping, direct from the OS. Also try the Ordnance Survey's "Getamap" service. This is provided directly by the OS. There is no J13 at any scale on those maps, AND it's signed on the ground as junction 12. Richard B 13:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And the official Ordanance Survey maps at Get A Map (on the official Ordanance Survey web site and run by Ordanance Survey) also show it as part of Junction 12 and show no Junction 13. And Street Map also based on OS maps Streetmap About Us as do Multi Map as do the AA road atlases (of which mine shows it all as Junction 12). Finally I have driven through here more times than I care to remember and there is no junction 13 signed. I also don't recall mentioning Googlemaps. Regan123 14:08, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We are both citing OS as a reference, yet with conflicting findings. Nevertheless, the plan is not changing. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 14:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite. You are citing Collins, who design their own map, based on OS source data. I'm citing the OS itself, and the road signs that are actually there. It's a bit like citing The Sun's interpretation of a news story, following a press release of a scientific discovery. Not that I don't trust Collins to get it right most of the time, but the OS are more likely to get it right, as they own the source data. We may also need to check the copyright implications if this was copied from the OS source data. Richard B 14:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And your comparing Collins to The Sun, lol! Comparing anything to The Sun is leaps and bounds beyond comparison. I'll tick by my source and repeat my preceding comments. The map is not changing and I consider the matter close, contact the relevant WikiProject for guidance. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 14:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a dispute template to the M27 section and suggest that further discussion now happens there.Regan123 14:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since there is no dispute on the 27 motorway article, I will not participate to the discussion. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 14:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I do repect collins more than The Sun. However, both are free to interpret the information as they please. Note that mapping errors do exist, and that the OS is more likely to be the most accurate source, and it matches the road signs on the ground. I would be interested to see if there are any other sources saying that this is Junction 13, as there are plenty saying that it's junction 12. Plus, can I ask if the maps were derived from OS source data? Richard B 15:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Motorway 27 - junction 13.png[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Motorway 27 - junction 13.png. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Motorway Plans[edit]

This is not about the M27 motorway plan, but about the plans in general. Any chance that on future plans you create that rather than label it "Motorway xx", label it "Mxx Motorway". It's never referred to as the former. In official texts, they're always "Mxx Motorway". Thanks Richard B 00:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CFC[edit]

Why did you move CFC to TER Corse??? The infobox says CFC, the french wikipedia says CFC so why TER Corse??? I dont want an edit war Chris5897 (T@£k) 14:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My edits always comprise of an edit sumary. TER Corse is the Transport express régional for Corsica, Corse. No edit war is in the books, simply respect of how things are called. The article name was carefully chosen, as were unhyphenated TER articles, which respected their website's spelling, I will have to move these back also so their name is in accordance with SNCF websites. The Chemin de Fer Corse is the brand name under which the services are run, as are Transilien, TIR, TGV, but are not the company's or authorities' name. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 14:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I take the train every day and I know that its TER Rhône-Alpes (because I see it every day!!!) Chris5897 (T@£k) 14:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's great. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 14:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved your subsequent edits on TER Corse to the appropriately named article. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 16:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A625 road article[edit]

You obviously have a different version of the AA 2006 map than I do. Please see talk:A625 road for multiple sources counter to your claim, including the OS definitive map on www.getamap.co.uk. Richard B 20:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate a more subtle politness on my talk page, you clearly believe you have a superior reasoning or you wouldn't criticise my possessions, the 2007 AA pocket atlas is ISBN:0-7495-4875-4. The British road Project does not have the monopole of british roads article editing. Instead of talking, make valid modifications. Bare in mind that the code of conduct frowns blanking and instead advocates rewording of inexactitudes. thanks to the build of Wikimedia, our watchlists will help us monitor changes and bring the articles to a more precise level? I'd suggest referring to Sabre for light on the A625, they're clealry not as adament as you are. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 11:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe SABRE would come to the same conclusion as I did. That the A625 has been rerouted away from Castleton. In fact, the SABRE roads by 10 article about the A625 mentions this very fact. I would say that, in light of a disagreement in map sources, then the OS is the most likely to be definitive, since virtually all other mapping in the UK, including the AA/Collins etc, are all derived from OS source data. Richard B 00:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're going the wrong way about this, like yet again preaching. Since I've edited my changes to satisfy your comments I see nothing else to do than expand the article rather than bother a line of accurate data. There is also little need to quote the same information as I did, especially when it goes against your sayings. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 00:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:MI2.png[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:MI2.png. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 20:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

040 TA Ouest[edit]

Ah, well. I tried. At least it made someone else pay attention to the page. The reason I inserted "class" was simply that "0-8-0 tank engine" sounded awkward. Happy editing, neh? ♠P M C♠ 07:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help[edit]

Please have a look at the stations with the name "Meadowhall" in their name. There only needs to be Meadowhall Interchange (the modern station), Meadowhall and Wincobank station (the original South Yorkshire Railway station which is actually in Blackburn) and Wincobank and Meadowhall (Sheffield & Rotherham Railway, later Midland Railway). There is also the list shown on the Sheffield stations...there is no station called Chapeltown West (either Central or South - South is the one still in business), Grange Lane station is actually in Rotherham, Beighton station was in Derbyshire when built and may have been so at closure?? How about a category "Transport in Barnsley" and "Transport in Rotherham". Thanks. Tudorminstrel, 12:36, 3 November 2006

Hi Tudorminstrel, I've been trying to ocntact you but haven't received any replies until today. The problem with Meadowhall stations is they have changed names several times. I know I've had problems identifying the station names and User:JeremyA and I actually found undocumented stations, such as Grange Lane. Myself and User:Warofdreams have decided to include all stations that are currently or have been in Sheffield, thus creating a concurrency. This is why Grange Lane, in Sheffield (the Sheffield A to Z is a good source), the same goes with Beighton as it presently is in Sheffield (place of) and since we are 2006 historians, we found it would be more appropriate to do it this way, I hope you agree. If changes need to be made concerning the Meadowhall stations, I believe the See also respects the Manual of Style rather than a lengthy introduction, I kept the name formatting you've used but changed presentation. How about we look into this and find sources with the proper names and then we can proceed with article moves? Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 11:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Morning Capt'n. Right...looking at the stations we are talking about. I can see your point with Beighton so no problems with that one. Grange Lane is not in Sheffield and never has been. My map in the A-Z clearly shows the city boundary and the station is outside, only just but outside nevertheless. The same applies to Meadown Hall & Wincobank on the South Yorkshire line - its in Blackburn, part of Rotherham, and again this is shown on the A-Z. Cheers for now....Tudorminstrel.

Grange Lane Station is and was in Sheffield before and after the 1974 change of city limits and abolition of the borough, the city and borough limits folow the Blackburn from Meadowhall and followed the course of the Brook past Thundercliffe Grange and Thorpe Common, only to reverse course north of Chapeltown and Ecclesfield to go towards Stocksbridge (53°26′16″N 1°26′06″W / 53.43778°N 1.43500°W). Meadowhall/Meadow Hall Station though is you are right in Rotherham by a mere few metres but a few meres nevertheless, it'll be taken out. For the names of the stations, I've looked into Railways of Sheffield by S Batty. What is now Meadowhall Tinterchange: It was Wincobank, then Wincobank and Meadowhall, then Wincobank. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 11:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don Valley Railway and a few other things[edit]

Hi! Is the Don Valley Railway anything other than a pie-in-the-sky project? Looking at their website it doesn't seem like they've got any further than thinking that it might be a good idea... possibly (but barely) worth an article, but I don't think worth the scattered mentions it gets in articles like Stocksbridge and Upper Don. As far as I am aware there are other, much further developed plans for the old Woodhead route.

Butting in on you above conversation. Sheffield City Council think that the Sheffield boundary follows the M1, placing Grange Lane Station in East Ecclesfield ward [5] and the old Meadow Hall station in Shiregreen and Brightside [6].

Do you have any objection to me deleting Category:Sheffield Supertram stops—I don't see that it serves any useful purpose (I also want to delink all of the stops in the article). Another thing is that I would still like to do is move Tinsley West Station to West Tinsley Station as it is on the old OS maps, and in S Batty's book.

—JeremyA 22:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've seen and been involved with to a degree, the DVR is nothing more than a group of enthousiasts. There are in my opinion far too many links to it and many articles created for the sole purpose of being linked to the DVR article (Sheffield Ski Village, Nunnery Square spring to mind). I'm not too sure what to ought to be done, merge it into the Woodhead Line article, keep it as is and link it from the Woodhead Line? Minimal links are needed and in far smaller numbers than actually, the DVR is just an association, I could do the same by plugging websites to generate traffic too.

All maps I have from at least 1950 put Grange Lane in Sheffield with either the city limits following the M1 'and or including Thorpe Hesley (but not anymore for the latter), there therefore is no issues for GL as we suspected when we started the series.

I encourage you to delete the category! We've discussed it many times and there is no interest if not point to having articles and or a category grouping these. I had 'fun' tonight reverting/rewriting a few articles. I've been thinking of your stops table proposition and will come back to you on this one, important thing is to delink hypothetic tram stop articles. I'm not too sure what the format for street naming is... streetname, locality or qstreetname (locality)? the first I saw was with brackets, followed by comas.

I've found me book I originally got information on the station from, you may move the article as I have no issues (god knows where i got the present name from), I'll update the template. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 00:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that the number of links to the DVR website is borderline spam—I will probably remove them at some point. Of the pages linking to the DVR article itself, I think that only the one in Woodhead Line is worthwhile.

Do you not think that Meadowhall Station is in Sheffield too? That's what the council maps imply... and although I would not be surprised if the council got it wrong, election-maps.co.uk agree with them. —JeremyA 00:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've done your homework, if your source say both stations are in Sheffield, then I'm happy with that. In agree with the spamlike: shameless plugging, the saviours of the railway industry... Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 00:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

:) I try to edit as a neutral—removing shameless plugging of things that I like or agree with as well as that which I don't. I really hope that DVR succeed, but I suspect that they won't. —JeremyA 01:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Same here... With a touch of pedantism. ;) Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 09:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bordeaux[edit]

Ciao! I jumped on the Bordeaux article and found it in quite a poor state for such an important city. I tried to add something from the French wikipedia with my poor French... maybe you could help (I think are missing short descriptions, like those I've added, of some monuments, and some history passages). Thanks and good work. --Attilios 09:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya, I'd be glad to help you. I'll look into it later and see what can be done. I suggest looking at city articles that have FA status. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 09:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Railway box[edit]

Why did you delete the boxes that I had placed in station articles (Previous Station, Next Station, etc.)? I think that they're useful, instead of just writing three cities on the bottom of the page. Even the stations WikiProject says to put those boxes at the bottoms of station articles. Geoking66 19:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with railway boxes, they are impractical, contain little objective data. The table only contains the previous and next station rather than beginning and end, I haven't reverted your contributions but formatted them clearly and corrected errors (such as your edits shoing all rail services are regional!). French railway stations are neither maintained by Wikiproject stations or trains so the PoV of their members irrelevant. You're welcome to create a line navigational box of the likes of Template:Ligne de la Côte Fleurie. Furthermore it has been agreed that Wikipedia is not a directory and as such the regional TER articles contain all of the regional rail services in a list, which is sanctionned by Wikipedia convention. Your contributions are an asset, but not in their form. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 20:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Basically I thought that if you at least had some information, I could do some more research on the stations and make better articles. I hate doing large edits; I like doing them in smaller pieces. It's basically building upon one or two sentences into more of an article. If you want to delete the article, fine with me. It really doesn't matter. You know more about French stations than I do. I guess I [incorrectly] thought that I was helping. All I did was ask a question; I didn't intend on starting a debate. Geoking66 02:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2 columns[edit]

The schools in Sheffield would look better in 2 cols too. Is this easy? roundhouse 12:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I'll work out something, I know there's a script for that, let me find it and I'll apply it. The list will look much better after that. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 12:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki:Common.css gives various mysterious entities. (I know how to produce a table but the refs trick is much neater.) roundhouse 18:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arc, river in Savoie[edit]

Hi, you moved Arc (Savoie) to River Arc, referring to a (which?) naming convention. My objections against this:

it's not usual to call rivers in France River X, unlike rivers in Britain.
there are other rivers named Arc, including another one in southern France.
the brackets are used for disambiguation with other rivers.

See also WP:RIVERS#Naming. I'm reverting the move. Markussep 18:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rivers in France are often referred to as River X. But whetever. Arc Savoir means it's a town, not a river... Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 23:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe "Arc, Savoie" would indicate a town, in order to avoid confusion we chose some time ago to use brackets for disambiguating rivers. IMO we don't need the word "river" in the title, if there are no conflicting places. AFAIK there is no town called Arc in Savoie, except for the ski resorts Arc 1600, Arc 1800 etc.. Markussep 15:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If that project group of yours DID put in River in the article name it wouldn't have to go against Wikipedia's general naming convention of using comas: such as River Arc, Savoie. I am not part of this project, so i know or even care what its principles are, fact is the article is badly named. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 18:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what general naming convention you're talking about. Take a look at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places)#Determine prevalent usage for instance. Bot the comma and parenthetical methods are allowed according to this. Markussep 19:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would serve both your purposes if you would name the article Arc (river, Savoie). Leaves to say the country concerned, but that is an issue currently under debate (as far as I am insofar concerned) at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(settlements). Cheers. THEPROMENADER 19:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a lengthy debate about naming rivers already, let's not repeat it here. Captain Scarlet, you're welcome to expand the article, I think that's more useful than moving it around. Markussep 21:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will repeat it. I didn't take art it your debate before and if I believe your naming convention is rubbish I'll confront it. The parenthesis is off topic since there is one administrative division, as stated in the naming conventions:

Comma method Is the place name mostly used as a full named link in other articles? Then, this entity name should be as complete as possible, with the disambiguation in comma form, ready for use in a sentence. o Format: + "ShortName, HigherDivision" + "ShortName term, HigherDivision" o This reference is unlikely to occur in the text without the "term" or without the "HigherDivision". Check all parts in the same manner as the short name. Assuming no conflicts, name the article "ShortName term, HigherDivision", and use "ShortName term" as a redirect or disambiguation page. If there are more conflicts, disambiguate "HigherDivision" using the same method.
Parenthetical method Is the place name mostly used as a short name reference in other articles? Then, this entity name should be as simple as possible, with the full disambiguation in parentheses. o Format: + "ShortName (HigherDivision, HighestDivision) + "ShortName term (HigherDivision, HighestDivision) o In many cases, most of the other references to "ShortName" are a list of related places. There is no need to indicate the complete geographic location multiple times in the text of those articles. Using the full disambiguation will make administrative divisions clear at a glance. Note: full disambiguation within parentheses uses the comma method, not nested parentheses.

River X, département. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 08:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think your discussion method (I'm right, and what you think is rubbish) is completely out of line. If you want to move something, and it's clear that it's controversial (because you're being reverted), you have to post it at WP:RM. What is said in the naming conventions is not pro or contra your or my preferred article name. The choice between commas and parentheses in the naming convention above is about what is most likely to be shown in text: the short name "Arc" or something like "Arc, Savoie". But that doesn't matter, because we have a convention for rivers. That you didn't take part in the discussion doesn't mean you can simply ignore it. If you want to start a new discussion, do so in the appropriate places. Markussep 16:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've quote soething that does not support your PoV, I used your precise quote, and it supports mine, how can that be? We don't have a convention for rivers, WP:Rivers has a convention, which is in no way official since WP are well nothing unless their conventions are on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places)#Determine prevalent usage which is goes with not my PoV but with the convention already established and approved. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 17:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A river isn't a place, so Wikipedia:Naming conventions (landforms)#Rivers would seem more relevant, and includes the WP:Rivers support for the Arc (Savoie) form. Category:Rivers of France has a lot of rivers; none is named River X (apart from the recent River Arc (Savoie)) but quite a few are X River. There is Arc (Provence). -- roundhouse 18:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(landforms)#Rivers has exactly what I've stated since the beginning. and is the same as on WP:Rivers. I do want to rename each and every river article in France and put it right. If it's wrong even in numbers, change it WP:IAR. Further and more in depth research of how it is stated that rivers should preferably be named as I have commented they should be named is written black on white on Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(landforms)#Rivers so i see little point in continuously quoting the damn page. Thankfuly, filling up redirect forces the person disagreeing to engage a WP:RM which will bring to light the rules he or she is advocating and stating the opposite he she claimed in the first place. Arc (Provence) should indeed be renamed River Arc, Provence, I for the sake of it have just asked around and in France, River goes in front when it's included, and just as Markussep pointed out there is a disambiguation on Arc so the need to add River exists. Now please, quote WP pages correctly rather than contradicting yourselves. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons<

Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(landforms)#Rivers says "If different rivers with the same name exist, use bracket-disambiguation", which seems clear enough; so we get Arc (Provence), Arc (Savoie). There seems to be no ambiguity betwixt Les Arcs and Arc, in my view, thus no compelling need in this case for River. Certainly if you are right most of the rivers in France will need to re-named and Category:Rivers of Switzerland, Category:Rivers of Italy, Category:Rivers of Spain and many others all re-considered, so I wish you luck in this enormous task. -- roundhouse 20:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming all French river articles shouldn't take long, half an hour at the most. Concerning them other countries, since I don't know how they call their rivers I wouldn't venture into doing something I don't know about, if they do name their rivers as the French do, with river placed first, then it would probably not take much longer per country. The longest task if needed is correcting redirects. I assure you though, that French really do put River before, in fact, the only people I know that don't are Americans, yet we're stuck with X River because of that, it's our loss really. For now anyway, you'll find I renamed the river (which I didn't actually contribute btw, so don't know why the hell I got dragged into this) with the brakets, French Wikipedia style, so ugly brakets are... Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 00:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Millhouses engine shed[edit]

I have to disagree with Captain Scarlet and his statement "(No offence but a mobile phone over flashed photo isn't of a better quality. edit your photo and darken it.)" as the photo of Millhouses engine shed which I submitted shows what the inside of the shed looks like. It is NOT a mobile phone shot and was shot with flash, then lightened so show more detail. I will not change it back now as obviously you would just continue to swap it again so nothing would ever be achieved. I would hope other interested parties can compare the photos and suggest a compromise. —Laticss

Articles aren't showcases for one's photographic work as JeremyA stated in his first revert. Photos of Millhouses shed were present beforehand and the indoor photograph did not bring anything more to the article. Although all contributors are encouraged to contribute, unless you can bring something new and or of a better quality it will often be deleted or reverted. Because your shot of outside the building was unique and different, it was kept. Also, if you decide to contribute further photos to Wikipedia consider uploading them to the Wikipedia COmmons instead. The Commons are a repository of media that can be used on all Wikipediae articles. Unless you uploaded restricted, fair use or commercially unusable media, uploading media directly to wikipedia offers no advantage and forces other contributors to duplicate your images if they want to use them on other Wikipediae (say a photo of Buckingham Palace could be used on the Japanese Wikipedia). Wherever your photo is or is not a mobile phone image it looks greyed in the image gallery and blurred, similar to photos taken from mobile phones. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 22:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Route Nationale[edit]

Captain, we seem to be at loggerheads over the layout for the route nationale articles of which I have created 16 of the 20 listed. It might have been more courtious to have contacted me before deciding to delete my efforts to harmonise the layout. I can understand the removal of the image of the marker although plenty of other road article use these as illustrations, but I cannot see any virtue in objecting to the incorporation of a Route summary before the route it also incorporates major towns not identified in the route description as well as creating a useful menu. It also creates a logical place for other comments on the road, history, points of interest, changes etc. I look forward to your comments. Kind regards Vivbaker 16:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First I'd like to commend your translations of the French articles. secondly, Even though you created the artciles, I've had to translate them iunto English as your translation which I can only attribute to online or software translations were in some cases attrocious. Details such as the half translating of abbey, forest names, the constant additon of blank space after full stops, the lack of capital letter for orientation and straightfoward literal translations such as commence->start have proven long to translate. There is afterall only one space after full stops. Popup software noticed duplication of information which it offered to remove, route detials are duplicated twice in the article with the introduction stating where the road goes, and the route section detailing through what it passes, it is unencyclopedic to repeat data, why not just add the route information in the introduction rather than repeating it? The image markers were not initiated by myself although I agree with their removal, their presence and creation relates more to token use of graphical aid rather than article enhancement. There is a place for the logotype of Routes nationales on the Route nationale (France) article where one or two logotypes can be added to explain how nationales are signposted on the French highway network. As you've done yourself when rewritting the N13, 14 and 15 articles, history can have its place either in the route description as an anecdote or in its own section.

If you'd like pointers on French spelling and maybe naming conventions, I'd be happy to help you. It is not appropriate to half-translate names: Either use Forêt de Rosny or Rosny forest, same goes Abbaye d'Ardennes or Ardennes abbey. Also in English translated French, highway refers not to a motorway or autoroute but to the highway as the national road network: the French highway network of roads of which routes nationales are part of, as well as routes départmentales, communales and chemins vicinaux.

Also and this is hard to say, take time to check wikified links, town names can easily be verified on the list of communs per départements, in the N15 article you had spelt Le Harve several times. I'm the first person to make mistakes but if you edit an article you can use the show preview to check red links and this also helps reducing the number of edits per article.

I am here if you need help just as any other Wikipedian is and it is not my wish to undermine any of your arctiles, but to bring them to such a level I have observed throughout the website; by applying the Manual of Style and using wikified links. Regards, Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 17:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Desist vandalising my articles or I will report you. Many Tanks Vivbaker 14:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

articles on wikipedia do not belong to their editors. Anyone can edit articles. Furthermore, neither my edits nor yours consist of vandalism, quote from Wikipedia:Vandalism Some users cannot come to agreement with others who are willing to talk to them on an article's talk page, and repeatedly make changes opposed by everyone else. This is regrettable — you may wish to see our dispute resolution pages to get help. However, it is not vandalism. I will continue to edit any article I wish to edit just as any other contributor to and will continue to thrive to bring articles to a Wikified state, this will being with yet another edit of Route nationale 9. If your edits are not a translation of French, they certainly are not of an ideal level of English and do constitute poor translations in some parts as I have explained it to you above. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 16:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NS 1500[edit]

I noticed you imported the table into the NS 1500 Class article. It would probably make more sense to sort by the NS number, and put this column first, since this is what the article is about. Our Phellap 00:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, go for it, i only imported the table from the 77000 article without modifying it. Cheers, Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 12:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Link on your talk page to my contributions[edit]

This conversation is closed, no replies will be input by the owner of the talk page. This conversation is an archive from 14/03/07.

I've asked you about this previously and not had an answer. Well actually, I've asked you a lot of things and not had answers. Anyway, I'm hoping you could explain the reason for the link my contributions on your user page. I can't think of its purpose. I suspect if I was to remove it, you would revert the edit with a summary along the lines of "this is my church". Whilst I appreciate that this is your user page, you can't simply use it as you wish, this is still part of Wikipedia and the guidelines clearly state so. My impression is that the link is an attempt to make a statement of some kind. You've previously suggested that I have your contributions on my watchlist. That isn't the case but it should be fairly obvious that we share common interests in transport. The link might give other editors the impression that you have some concerns about my edits, but if this was true then I'd expect you to put your concerns to me, so I don't think this is fair. Adambro 11:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All edits on my userpage are marked this is my church, i suppose it's better than I was bored so there. My userpage is my shortcut page and I wish to have your contributions in my favourites. Regardless of our common interest in transport this should not make us any closer. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 11:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion was meant to be more that I am likely to be editing similar pages due to the common interest. I'm still not clear on why you want the link to my contributions though, why do you need such a shortcut? Also, edit summaries are supposed to provide a brief description of the changes made not to make statements unreleated to the change. Adambro 12:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be fair you're a tad hypocrite, you do have my userpage on watch since I edited it and a few seconds later got a message from you. I do have your contributions on watch because as I have observed behaviour I did not particularly like, I have them on watch and observe so don't throw Bad Faith WP back at me. Watching your contributions is just as valid as waching an article. I was clear when I said I do not wish to communicate with you, I still don't. I didn't sign because I didn't sign

I'm not being hypocritical at all. Of course I have your talk page on my watchlist, since if I leave a message on your page, it is convenient to just check my watchlist as opposed to visting every user talk page I might be awaiting a reply on. Once again, if you concerns with regards to me edits then please explain these to me, I accept I do make mistakes and appreciate the help and guidance of other editors. I'm afraid I can't see what should concern you about my edits and it is for that reason that I ask you to detail these concerns. Theres no point watching my contributions and noticing problems then not discussing these with me. I must disagree that watching my "contributions is just as valid as waching an article". You don't watch other editors contributions for the sake of it. I'd suggest you might do this if you had some concerns and so ask you what your concerns are?

I have noted your desire not to communicate with me, but I cannot and should not feel this prevents me from discussing things with you just because of your personal preference. You've got to accept the opinions of other editors and deal with it where they differ from your own. Adambro 12:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not mistake my wish not to speak to you with my dislike of your opinions. I have not said you could not do what you think ought to be done, just that if I am witnessed of it it'll be noticed. Now be gone. Unsigned comment Captain scarlet/Archive2