User talk:ThePromenader/Archive 2 2014 November

Paris question

@Blue Indigo: - just making an addition to my earlier comment here so as to not muddle the Paris talk page further. For the record, I will not be arguing about that there; if Hardouin wants to voice further contention than he can open an RfC.

What should happen in the article is that the language should change with context, and the context changes from section to section. Damn, analogies are condescending (sorry) but let's take the 'looking at the city from above' example again.

For example, when we are talking about Paris' arrondissements, it is understood that we are talking only about Paris, so we 'zoom in' so that Paris' administrative limits fill the frame; in this context, only "Paris" is needed.

Yet when we talk about the Paris agglomeration, and have to 'zoom out' to show the entire thing, so it is understood that we are talking about the entire agglomeration (and not just Paris), so then it becomes necessary to use Paris intra-muros" (or "Paris proper") when we are indicating (in that context) something in the city itself.

When we move to the Paris economy, we have to zoom out to include the IDF (Paris region) because that's where the numbers are taken (even though Paris' actual economic activity is arguably in the agglomeration, but we're not here to write essays), so the context becomes 'Paris region' and phrases like "Paris agglomeration' and 'Paris proper' are needed when smaller-area specificity is needed (if we're not referring to individual départements).

When we zoom out yet again in the Demography section to include the aire urbaine so that we can study population/commuter activity in and around Paris, we again need the previous 'smaller area' language AND "Paris region" (but here 'Île-de-France' would make that indication clearer) when the referenced numbers come from there.

Yet when we move to city administration or history, we have to zoom in again where "Paris" becomes the context again so "Paris" becomes the only needed descriptor.

It's easier to read than to explain, but I hope that was clear. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 09:58, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Because Paris has tentacles in every direction, I see your point: then, when it becomes unavoidable to mention subjects outside the physical limits of Paris proper, there should be a sentence informing the reader that we are stepping beyond Paris intra muros, and why. The way the article reads now, it is confusing to the first-time reader... who has never read the talk page, and maybe also to readers who want to read something on Paris, but not on the region whose various subjects have their own article.

Section on Economy, which introduces itself as englobing "The Paris region":

• 1st sentence of §2 begins with "The Parisian economy...", which I would translate to literally mean "the economy of Paris";
• 2nd sentence of §2 begins with: "In the 2013 European Green City Index, Paris was listed...": does that mean Paris or the Paris region?
• 3rd sentence of §2 begins with: "The Paris region's most intense economic activity..."
• 4th sentence of §2 begins with: "While the Paris economy is dominated by services..." & goes on comparing it with Paris region;
• 5th sentence of §2 begins with: "The Paris Region..."

It is not necessary to go on with rest of the section: Industry & Employment, Tourism & Income which, again, offer a macédoine of Paris & Paris region.

When in the section on economy I see every paragraph begin with "The Paris region...", I begin questioning why I should have to be questioning.

Am I dumb, or what?

In addition, it is too bad that in the will to decrease the Parisian part of Paris considered to be too "touristy", or belonging to a past that should be buried, some events & individuals have been totally ignored. Maybe I am blind, but I can see no mention of Louis Pasteur, Henri Becquerel, Pierre & Marie Curie and their children and others whose discoveries[[1]] were made in Paris intra muros itself, and still have worldwide repercussions & utility.

If not wanting the article to sound too "touristy", why the insistance on having Disneyland mentioned several times? In the lede & two or three times in the article. If that is not "touristy", I am wondering what is. What an advertisement the Wikipedia Paris article is offering Disney & Co!

I also have a question on the lede... but I don't have time right now to go back to talk page.

Bye! --Blue Indigo (talk) 15:11, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Hm. Lemme go through them one by one.

• 1st: That's just language, but I would choose the latter too. And remember in economy we're not talking about just territory anymore... imagine a cloud of money floating over the city, attached by a tether to it.
• 2nd: Well, I don't know! You'd have to look at the reference to find out the area they're covering - every 'list' has their own methods, normally this is indicated in brackets. If it is just the city, there'll be nothing. I think in a Green index it would be just the city. Again, this is ranking, not territory.
• 3rd: That's fine! Since economy figures are taken over the Paris Region (Île-de-France) anyway. These numbers are a bit 'padded', IMHO, because it includes areas not technically part of Paris' economy - but administratively and statisticly (economy-wise), Paris has its ass between two chairs (figures taken in departments, Paris' suburbs extend beyond its inner ring of departments) as far as numbers are concerned, and that's the best they can do for now.
• 4th: That's fine too! 'Paris region' and 'Paris economy' are synonymous, because that's where the numbers are taken (Île-de-France).
• 5th: That's fine too... going back to what I was saying earlier, the 'context' becomes a 'zoom out' to the IDF, because that's what we need to do to get Paris' entire economy in the picture.

As a solution to the 'IDF confusion', it would be good to start the section in explaining that the Paris economy (Paris-dependant and Paris-serving businesses, etc) extends well into the suburbs, and that the IDF is where it's measured. That's a damn good point, actually, as people who live here kind of take that as a 'given', but foreigners won't understand that. Actually, the context should be given in the first sentence of every section. It was like that before, but perhaps its been removed since.

I frankly don't understand why those 'orders' to cut the history section were followed. I've tried to avoid looking at it, and Siefkin's on it I guess. Still, I wouldn't put individuals there unless it's absolutely necessary (we're talking about the history of the 'being' that is the city there - or I would do that, anyway). For individuals, what did they do in Paris? For Pasteur, I would have a "Scientific research" section, there you can list its past and present accomplishments together. Isn't there a section about Paris' biggest 'specialty' industries, too? These should be a sub-section of Economy, but I suppose now it's just a mess of statistics and comparisons. Disneyland is a tiroir-caisse that does a lot for the area's economy... it's mentioned for that aspect ($$$!), not the touristy part. I've got a Flammenkeuche in the oven... but ask away! THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 17:12, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

And no, you're not dumb, but if you still feel dumb after reading the article, that only means that the article has a problem. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 17:19, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

As I said, I was reading the article as a normal *reader* looking for an article on Paris, and curious about every aspect of what Paris is about & I mentioned how it hit me. If Paris region, Île de France, etc. have to come into play, then announce it at top of section so that people don't start scratching their head wondering where they have landed.

As for the people missing that I named above: Pasteur, Becquerel, the Curie... they should be there. Whether born in Paris or not, their professional life & research was done in Paris and, in my opinion, they have as much right to be mentioned as our darling Hemingway is! Since we have a section on Culture that includes painting, sculpture, photography, literature, theater, music, cinema, cuisine, fashion, festivals & the Tour de France, can't we create a tiny tiny subsubsub named "science" or something of the sort? Paris is Paris in all its aspects. And as long as we are so forward with its intra/extra muros great economy, why not also show some of the tents put up for the sans-abris on the quays of the Seine in the winter?

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Les_Enfants_de_Don_Quichotte#mediaviewer/File:Tents_along_the_Canal_St_Martin_by_aleske_in_Paris.jpg

That could help make the article less "touristy" and also show the huge gap between La Défense & les berges du canal Saint-Martin, which is a reality about Paris.

For me, it's a home-made quiche tonight! --Blue Indigo (talk) 18:18, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Heh, it's been a while since I made one. Thanks for putting it into my head, now I have to ; )

Every city has its specialties. If I was writing about my hometown, It would have quite extensive 'Education' and 'Healthcare' and 'Medical Research' sections (and about five 'yawn' sections, and no 'nightlife' or 'art' (unless it's with Dr. Evil air-quotes) sections ; ).

Oy, something should be said about homelessness. Human resources would be good for that - in a subsection of "Security" with "Police" and "Firefighting". I said I'd do that, didn't I? I'll add it to my list. Where's yours? THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 19:36, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Paris definitely needs more science. Science, bitches! THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 20:31, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Glad to put ideas into your head!

My list? In my head. Some contributors are much better at organizing the article than I would be. What I really see is the weird stuff, which I point out - that is no matter for a list. Then reviewing the French & thinking of what can be missing. And I do not want to begin that type of editing while things are changing, i.e. have my work of one day disappear the next. When I have time, I go to the Timeline of Paris where I can work in peace... !

I think the article on Paris will be ok. Some will not like it because it will be different from what they did, and I can understand the fact that they are annoyed - although I do not think the article is under destruction: it is being revamped! Ah! l'article du Monde!

Am also busy with a personal project extra muros to Wikipedia, which will not get done if I don't spend 25/24 7/7 on it! In fact, Wikipedia=taking a break... I need that quiet atmosphere to get my thoughts back together... It's like opening a window to fill the house with fresh air... in the middle of a blizzard!

Our dishes are kind of cousins. What did you drink with your Flammeküche? --Blue Indigo (talk) 22:52, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, perhaps add your list to the Paris talk-page section dedicated to that; it would be helpful to let other contributors know what you're up to.

I need distractions from monotony too, but I have around five trades, so switching between these does that trick. And I love 'hands on' work (I'm doing some telephone network restructuring today ; ). I just started my own business grouping them all around a year ago. Wikipedia should be a pleasure (and a learning opportunity too: this happens when one follows sources, there's always something new to add), but the 'soapbox squatting' makes it much less fun. I hate to see the article go to (expletive) the way it has, though, I was quite attached to it before, but that ended around 2008-9. There's a 'real' life out there.

'Drink' as in 'drinkydrinky'? I gave up on alcohol after studying neuroscience for around a year... after understanding how it works, brain just said 'no' one day. It was that research that drew my attention to the 'Paris' battle last year, by the way. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 07:23, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Not drink as a 'drinkydrinky', but something like having a glass of vin d'Alsace with a Flammeküche... :)

http://www.vinsalsace.com/choisir-son-vin/la-gastronomie-alsacienne/les-recettes-alsaciennes/tarte-flambee-flammekueche-art143.html

--Blue Indigo (talk) 07:55, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

That's what I meant, but hélas, no longer. (clasps hands in praying gesture, turns eyes towards heavens, aura appears around head ; )

Gottafly, my cables await! THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 09:03, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

@Blue Indigo:, I risk again La Bastille. We can always have our little conversations here if it turns out badly for me, but it's good news for you and the others at least. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 18:49, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What have you done this time???

Let us know what to bring you during your embastillement: don't want to bring you apples if you prefer oranges!

--Blue Indigo (talk) 19:03, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

A very pointed complaint to the admin who banned me before. Asking that 'both of us' be banned. A complaint quite revealing of 'own', but I can't be certain it will be seen like that. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 19:16, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

@Blue Indigo: - I'm in here again! But my advice is: don't get involved in all the shenanigans. That section could use some crime-rate-angle rewriting and a new title, though. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 17:41, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Promenader, are you ok in there? When is your time up? --Blue Indigo (talk) 20:48, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

What are you doing writing way up here? Yep, all is fine... what other choice do I have? : )

Everything okay with you, nothing pressing? I hope you're really not doing any grève thingy, it will be ignored anyway. I don't know when I'm out... two and a half days this time. Around noon tomorrow, Paris-time, methinks. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 21:08, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Way up here because that is where you had announced to me your new ré-embastillement... I am not putting anything anywhere: question de principe. Also very busy outside Wikiland. I would not dare say que votre malheur fait mon bonheur, but I am using your locked up time to attend to my personal business.

à bientôt! --Blue Indigo (talk) 22:19, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, forgot that I posted up here. Myself, I'm setting up a new accounting program - wheeeeee! I normally don't have time for Wikishinannigans, but hey, when change is in the wind... THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 22:29, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Blocked again

After I didn't look very closely for a few days, being under the impression that with some of the recent edits people were at last back to constructive tinkering with the content, I see that the old hostilities between you two have flared up again. I'm really at a loss about what to do with you people – you seem both to be knowledgeable and good-willed contributors, but the bad blood between you seems to be simply too strong for you to get along. I can't see anything else to do for the moment than to block you both, for the same time period. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:10, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

You are completely misguided - I really suggest that you actually look into a situation before 'taking action' as you do. My criticism is always an answer to something, something that's been complained about by just about every other contributor on the talk page, yet you remain persistently, insistently blind. Speak with the other contributors about my conduct and the source of the problem - if you will go to the extreme of blocking me (yet again), you can at least grant me that, or at least reading the talk page without just extracting the bits that confirm what you've apparently already decided. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 22:39, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Fut.Perf., I'm quite annoyed at this - I did not contest it the first time in hoping you would actually look at the situation - you obviously didn't - but being blocked a second time, because of an answer to disingenuous accusations against me (to a possible new contributor - the article needs all the help it can get!), I mean really. There's only one disruptive contributor here, look [2][3][4]. Talk with the others about this - or anyone you want to, for that matter. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 22:48, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I fully expected you would react somehow like this, unfortunately, because it is clear to me that you honestly believe there is only one party at fault in this issue – but then, this unwillingness or inability to reflect critically on your own conduct is exactly the problem here, in my view. In the thread I read, it was not Statistiker who started personalizing a dispute, bringing up personal grudges and casting aspersions against a newcomer – it was you. And then both parties again exploded into the same old kind of flame-warring over the same old issues. I continue to firmly believe that you, just as much as the other guy, need to start seriously changing your approach in this article. Right now, I am somewhat at a loss on how to proceed further – should I go on with the strategy I have been trying, until you both end up with really long blocks, or should I bring the whole thing to Arbcom to let them sort out who's at fault most? I predict that too will ruffle feathers on both sides. Unfortunately, it will probably also result in removing both of you from the topic area, which is exactly what I have been trying hard to avoid. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:20, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

So why didn't I react like this the first time? I was hoping you would see reason for yourself.

If you read earlier in the thread, you'd see that Statistiker had already -twice- accused pretty well everyone but himself of either ineptitude or bad faith (and even pinged the newcomer to do it), or worse. I think your 'expectation' is the problem here, you won't look further than it. Like I said, you're only reading (scanning) the parts convenient to your already-made assumption. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 10:51, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

There is something more than obvious worthy of complaint going on, yet you fixate on the complainer. So, everything worthy of complaint should go unpunished as long as no-one complains about it, and if one does complain, the complainer and the complained-about should be punished equally? Really?

If I weren't vociferous, it's possible that all the others contributing would have been chased away long ago. That's the very reason I have remained talk-page only, to lessen the pressure on them by answering to the condescending assault againt them so that they can edit in peace. I am promoting contribution and improvements to the article, not dissuading, reverting and disrupting them as Statistiker has since years now. If you would look at all the cases from many different contributors opened against him, you would see that. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 11:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Der Statistiker began personalizing a dispute, bringing up personal grudges with this post. Coldcreation (talk) 10:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

From my viewpoint, it is clearly user Der Statistiker who, rather than discuss issues related to improving the Paris article, prefers to attack editors who he/she sees as antagonists: opposed to representing the city as an exclusively modern metropolis. While no one is opposed to representing the modern aspects of Paris, this concept needs to be balanced with other aspects of the city (such as its historical heritage, its large homeless population, its significant tourism industry, crime, safety and security, and so on). This is the root of the problem with Der Statistiker. The Promenador, and many other editors of the Paris article, including myself, have become preferred targets of this individual because of our desire to create a balanced article. The Promenador is particularly singled out because he is a leading protagonist of the balanced article approach. His ban should be lifted. Coldcreation (talk) 10:36, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

{{unblock | 1=I've been ''second'' time I've blocked by the same administrator for ''complaining about'' disruptions - I didn't contest the first time in hoping he'd examine the situation; he obviously didn't, or won't.}}

I agree entirely with Coldcreation; the problem is not at all Promenader, who has worked smoothly and cooperatively with me and other editors; the problem is Der Statistiker, who is continually rude, sarcastic, abusive, and completely intolerant toward any view that disagrees with his. I hope that Promenader can soon be allowed to edit with us again, because his cooperative spirit and ability to get editors working together are very important to the development of this article. 16:40, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Oy, thanks guys. Again... were you here last time? Yes, for continuing the history discussion, anyhow. Anyhow. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 17:37, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Am going "on strike" as long as The Promenader is embastillé. --Blue Indigo (talk) 18:27, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Votre geste de solidarité me touche, mais ce n'est pas du tout neccessaire - mais merci... encore une fois ; ) THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 18:34, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay, a couple of contributors have managed to convince me that I don't have to respond to every libellous comment or disingenuous accusation. The thing is, in the past, I would follow the noise to see a new contributor (and/or administrator) being either dissuaded or treated to a string of 'warning' libel about 'others'... claims that I felt moved to debunk. Yet today enough contributors are aware of the situation that I no longer have to do this. Old habits die hard, I guess, apologies. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 19:02, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

@Coldcreation, I don't agree with this idea that this is only Der Statistiker's fault. In my opinion, ThePromenader is not working toward a balanced article. It is very difficult to communicate with Promenader, he refuses to listen to any points which contradict his ideas. Minato ku (talk) 20:08, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I would really like to see some examples of this. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 20:12, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

...and an example of "my ideas". The only desire I've ever expressed is "structure", "flow" and "more urbanism". THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 20:15, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think we should come on The Promenader's talk page & dig him in his hole even deeper. He knows what he is being reproached with. He knows his points of difference with Der Statistiker. Why don't we let the two of them discuss their differences? And what's wrong if their respective approach to the article is different? Personally, I believe that it is very good to have people with different views work together on a project: they should discuss, might discover things they had not thought of, then they should try to combine their ideas. Coming here to tell The Promenader off while he is being blocked is neither kind nor elegant. And I beg to differ with this: "he refuses to listen to any points which contradict his ideas" - which may fit several amongst us. In the course of discussions at Paris talk page, I don't see any instance of Minato ku ever 'listening' or trying to express an understanding of those whose ideas differ from his/hers, while I see times when The Promenader & Der Statistiker are working together.

Best regards, --Blue Indigo (talk) 22:29, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

And if it's the 'Paris isn't a skyscraper-filled city' 'POV' (that's not a 'POV' because it isn't a skyscraper-filled city), the most ironic thing about that is that I actually work for the APUR from time to time, and I'm presently working on a paper for them (my own work) about ilôt restructuring into larger blocks that, through a mix of mid-size 'transitional' building-hight modifications and pedestrian thoroughfares, would actually promote inner-city skyscrapers in a way that wouldn't 'mar' city beauty. But you don't see any of that in my edits or even comments: this article is about what is, not about what 'should be' or 'what (we think) the future will be' or 'what we want others to believe'. That is my POV. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 09:09, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Nicely put The Promenador. I couldn't have said it better myself. Coldcreation (talk) 09:40, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, I think that goes for most every good-faith contributor here. (wiping tear) Hm, you're my only visitor today. But it's the weekend, you all should be playing outside anyway ; ) THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 20:30, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I've disabled the unblock request as the block has expired. only (talk) 12:24, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

0.o THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 12:59, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your response here. only (talk) 13:24, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't even aware I was unblocked. Thanks, and cheers! THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 13:45, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Are you out now or is it getting too cozy in the Bastille? --Blue Indigo (talk) 15:37, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, I picked the locks, dug the tunnels, got past the guards to the front gate to find it... open. Then I wandered to my atélier to check that everything was still in place... and picked up my work where I left off. What time is it, anyway? THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 17:41, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I see. You're doing fine... THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 17:47, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

20' past the hour. --Blue Indigo (talk) 19:20, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

What hour? ; ) THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 19:31, 30 November 2014 (UTC)