From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Cities (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject France / Paris  (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Paris task force.
This article is supported by WikiProject French communes (marked as High-importance).

User:Évangéline's beneficial edits being undone/reverted by User:Metropolitan[edit]

Not understanding this really but Metropolitan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is blanket reverting both my and User:Évangéline's beneficial edits. Évangéline's edits consisted of establishing with precision the location of Nanterre as well as citing its historical link with Sainte Geneviève and mentioning, "Inhabitants of Nanterre are called Nanterraises (feminine) and Nanterrais (masculine).", mine included skipping a wikilink redirect and light copy-editing. Anyone find User:Metropolitan's blanket reverts over such helpful edits comprehensible? (Netscott) 17:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps talk things over before simply reverting - insteat of improving - contributor edits? Such behaviour is always an edit war in the making. THEPROMENADER 17:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
For the last time, User:Metropolitan, do not revert entire passages under the cover of reverting one phrase. You have now made four reverts - reverts are anything even in part - by refusing to make simple corrections to a few choice phrases and reverting everything, you have now forfeited your right to those changes. Try again in 24h - you're already over the line. THEPROMENADER 19:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Just for clarity here, I admit that I've reverted twice. After my second I proceeded to initiate discussion here (hence this thread). All of my other edits have been to add additional information and not to undo the work of fellow editors. (Netscott) 19:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Ah, sorry for that. My reverts were indeed reverts, so I'm done for today. If anyone has broken the rules, please report them. Me included. THEPROMENADER 19:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Nanterre is a suburb of Paris[edit]

Here is the French definition of a suburb (i.e banlieue) according to wikipedia: "La banlieue est la zone périphérique urbanisée autour d'une grande ville". This can be litteraly translated in English as "Suburb is the urbanized peripherical area surrounding a large city".

1. Nanterre belongs to the Paris urban area according to the INSEE.
2. Nanterre isn't inside the city of Paris according to French official administration.

From points 1 and 2, I conclude that Nanterre is a suburb of Paris. To use a sentence you love ThePromenader, it is a fact. This is the most concise and the most efficient description of it. Considering it as "a densely-inhabited municipality near the centre of the Paris agglomeration" is blurry, long, and laborious.

As for the current introduction that you constantly revert, ThePromenader, it repeats twice that Nanterre is in the Hauts-de-Seine. How efficient is this ? Please try to read the introduction you've written ThePromenader, it is heavy and badly worded. The former version was by far better. As for the specification that Nanterre is in Ile-de-France, it is simply useless, and this for two reasons: Firstly, this is already speficied in the infobox ; secondly, it is implied by the fact that the Hauts-de-Seine as a whole are in Ile-de-France anyway. This is about the same as saying that Lyon is a commune located in France and in Europe, one implies the other. Removing one makes it easier to read.

Now for the sake of concision and clarity, I will rewrite, once again, the introduction. And please, stop reverting it without thinking. Metropolitan 16:37, 7 november 2006 (UTC).

User:Metropolitan, style corrections are no reason for a wholesale revert - and never can be. You, on the other hand, eliminated wholesale the contributions of at least two other editors - without even looking at them it seems - and eliminated information essential to the locating of the commune in question. The Lyon example is non sequitur and rather silly. I don't know where you get the idea of a denial of this or that - this is but imagination - all that mattered was that what you unthinkingly eliminated should be restored and edited properly in a constructive fashion - not reverted outright. You need to change your editing habits, please. THEPROMENADER 20:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
PS: The Country/Region/Department/Commune heirarchy is important, as readers not knowing any better should be able to find the area spoken of. We don't eliminate information for the sake of "easy reading" - also, most foreigners do not know even what area a préfecture or département even encompasses - thus the "one in the other" heirarchical phrasing. We write not to personal taste, but to inform. THEPROMENADER 20:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Nanterre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:16, 1 December 2017 (UTC)