User talk:Captain scarlet: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 12:39, 4 August 2006

For older messages, please refer to Archive1. For the most excellent trolling messages, see Trollbox.

Stay away from things you know shit about

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".

Welcome !

Hello, Captain scarlet! I'm ulayiti, and I'd like to welcome you to Wikipedia! Thanks for your contributions, and I hope you'll like the place enough to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

When commenting on talk pages or voting, you should always sign your name by typing in four tildes (~~~~). This way people will know who made the comment and can respond to you. If you have any questions at all, feel free to ask me on my talk page. You can also have a look at the help pages or put up a question at the village pump. Welcome to Wikipedia, and happy editing! - ulayiti (talk) 16:10, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Great Northern Route

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

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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]

Tallest structures...

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

...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"

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

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

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]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs: Woodhouse, South Yorkshire; TransPennine Express; Victoria Quays; Birley; Mosborough; Wath North railway station; Hillsborough, South Yorkshire; Sheffield to Lincoln Line; Shiregreen and Brightside; Stocksbridge and Upper Don; Southey; Burngreave; Dronfield railway station; Cathedral Church of St Marie, Sheffield; Richmond, South Yorkshire; West Ecclesfield; Sartrouville (SNCF); Magna Science Adventure Centre; Pontoise (SNCF)

Cleanup: Featherstone; Tony Oxley; North London Railway
Merge: Arriva Yorkshire; French Wars of Religion; Railway signalling
Add Sources: Maltese euro coins; Aske Hall; Government debt
Wikify: Destiny Angel; Helier; ESDES
Expand: Economy of Paris; Demographics of Paris; Religious persecution

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 11:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tallests structures in... aaaaaaaaaargh.

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]

Welcome back

: ) 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]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 For older messages, please refer to [[User talk:Captain scarlet/Archive1|Archive1]]. For the most excellent trolling messages, see [[User talk:Captain scarlet/Trollbox|Trollbox]].
+== Stay away from things you know shit about ==
+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".
 ==Welcome !==