User talk:Jared/archive9

RE: Houston, we have a problem

The misquote is minor. The phrase is commonly quoted in the present tense: "Houston, we have a problem." The quote is actually in the past tense according to the transcript ... start reading at timestamp 55:55:20. I'll document accordingly. mastorrent 04:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings and structures in Paris

Thanks for you intervention at Talk:List of tallest buildings and structures in Paris. Common sense is really needed there. If you're interested, you can also have a look at Talk:Île-de-France (région) and comment. The same user, ThePromenader, has removed the following sentence from the introduction of the article: "Its territory corresponds for the most part to the metropolitan area of Paris.", and he removed it for about the same rigid reasons that he wants to change the title of List of tallest buildings and structures in Paris. It's very hard to reach any sort of compromise with this guy, and despite being told by both User:Metropolitan and I on the Île-de-France talk page that the sentence should remain in the introduction, he removed it nonetheless. Have a look. Your input there would be appreciated. Hardouin 18:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings from Paris

Hello Jared.

I'm sorry for my strictness, but it's important to remain true to reference here. Paris is unlike many of the world's metropoles, that is to say it is quite administratively separated from its suburbs - this is a real problem for city-suburb relations. All suburban communes have their own administrations, and have often even pride in their quite distinct identity - communes have been around since 1790. These make a large part of the reason that nothing outside Paris is called "Paris" - a situation quite peculiar, I agree, but one you can find in most every reference you look at. You will not find "Courbevoie" under "Paris" - actually, you'll have more chance of finding "La Défense" under "Courbevoie" than "Paris". Since this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, it is important to stick to referenced fact and not rely on greater ignorance - this is the "big deal" with this. Although many theories have been "explained" by certain contributors (Paris is bigger than Paris), nothing has ever been proven in this regard - and there is very good and obvious reason for this.

Just a word of explanation for my stance on this matter, but thanks for your input.

Regards,

THEPROMENADER 19:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also appologize if I seemed too rude, but maybe it is because I am not a native Parisian. I sort of see where you're coming from, but I don't understand how Paris would not have somewhat of a metropolitan area. Anyhow, I know you live in Paris and know more about it than I do, so I'd like to leave this matter to people who know more about the city...like you and User:Metropolitan.

I appreciate your trying to clarify your view for me. → JARED' ^(t) 19:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I appreciate your unexpected (and unneeded!) apology - and trust me I do know where you are coming from. But today Paris is in a situation that many would like to see changed - distant relation with its suburbs - but a few here insist on pretending that they have changed already. This is far from factual, so I hope you see reason in this - just think of me next time you have an encyclopedia open : ) I'm sorry also that some of my vehemence may have bled onto you - this is an argument that has been going on quite some time.

Take care, and no doubt see you around,

THEPROMENADER 19:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jared, don't be fooled by ThePromenader here. First let me warn you that the guy is Canadian and has lived in Paris for only about 10 years, and yet he believes he's an authority on Paris. Unfortunately, his many misguided and erroneous edits show his not so good knowledge of Paris. One example: the Paris article, in its Administration section, asserts that (I quote) "Although Paris' history is long, that of its municipal government has less than half a century: Paris and its surrounding territories were always governed directly by the highest power of the time: this was the Crown before the French Revolution, and a state-appointed préfet (governing the Seine département) afterwards." This bit was written by ThePromenader, and it is completely wrong. There existed a municipality of Paris from the 13th century until the French Revolution, but ThePromenader doesn't seem to know that. I already told him to correct that bit, but as you can see it is still standing uncorrected. The fact that people would write erroneous things about subjects that they are not very familiar with is beyond my understanding.

Then, there is the nice slant written above, trying to persuade you that nothing outside of Paris is called Paris, that the City of Paris is strictly separated from its surburbs, and so forth. This is of course for the most part wrong. There exist many metropolitan structures (encompassing the City of Paris and the suburbs) that manage such things as public transportation, fire rescue, or garbage collection. Then there is also the administrative région of Île-de-France whose territory for the most part corresponds to the metro area of Paris and which has all the communes (including the City of Paris) working together for metropolitan projects. Of course, Promenader didn't tell you any of this. I can only suggest again having a look at Talk:Île-de-France (région). Hardouin 19:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I've lived here since 1989. Although he I guess was born here, the funny thing with this guy is that he can't find one reference supporting his "Paris is bigger than Paris" claims - not one. If you look at the "tallest structures" talk page again you'll see that I've left several, and official ones to boot. This is indeed much ado about nothing, and a big waste of everyone's time. Fact is there for the taking - for those who want it. Sorry for the mess : ) THEPROMENADER 20:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Birthday!

Just a happy Birthday message to you, Jared/archive9, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day!

Jrc og a ! 04:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article moved against consensus

Jared, can you have a look at List of tallest buildings and structures in Paris? User:ThePromenader moved the article to "List of tallest buildings and structures in Île-de-France" although there is clearly no consensus on the talk page to move the article. I moved the article back to its original title. I am afraid that Promenader is going to move it back to Île-de-France. Can you have a look? Thanks. Hardouin 13:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you may note that the motion to move the page to "Paris region" failed, but that to move it to "Île-de-France" won albeit by a narrow margin. I left this vote for seven days but only one opposed the move - guess who.

The page has been blocked by an admin so no worries for you - but come by for a look if it interests you. Thanks. THEPROMENADER 14:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Connecticut Highway Signs

How are you making these images? (For example, ) I'd like to add them to the interchange listings on Interstate 395 (Connecticut). You just say "Made from existing images."

I'm looking for something similar to the other New England state route signs where you can basically put any number in an image, a la , , or . I notice anything over in Connecticut doesn't have a sign image.

Thanks! Tckma 17:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Final state highway naming conventions debate

JP06035, your participation is welcome in the Wikipedia:State route naming conventions poll. Please give your input as to the process by 23:59 UTC on August 8.

Regards, Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Picture on Portal:Olympics/Selected athlete

Jared,

I'm going to be removing the picture from Portal:Olympics/Selected athlete. The picture is a copyright violation. At best, it may come in under fair use, but that means it's not allowed on the portal page. --Sue Anne 21:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing that. I know its important to keep up the search for fair use pictures in non-mainspace pages. The problem, I think, with keeping up an Olympic Portal is that the choice of images is very slim, almost to none. Just about all of them are fair use, which is a bother, I know, but we can't really do anything about it. Oh Well. Thanks for being a good wikipedian! And letting me know! → JARED ^(t) 13:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aquatics v. Swimming/Schronized Swimming/Waterpolo/Diving

Hey Jonel,

I was recently doing some edits to the 2008 summer page and I was going through the sports when I realized that the only sport that isn't listed is Aquatics, rather, its disciplines are listed. I've noticed this all along but havn't really made anything of it until now. It seems that the 4 disciplines are not grouped together into one page, like Volleyball at the 2004 Summer Olympics (Beach and indoor). Instead, they have their own pages. Why is this? Is this just something that we have just gone along with and never changed? If it has to do with the size of the page, obviously Athletics would be just as big if not bigger. And that's what subpages are for anyway.

So what do you think? I know you've been on the project longer than I have so I figured I'd ask you, the veteran of the Olympic WP pages! I think that they should be merged into one page, [[Aquatics at the ____ Olympics]], so that every sport is consistant. From there, we can have more subpages, but I think that a consistancy would be nice. With a mix, it just doesn't seem right. Anyway, respond when you can. Thanks. → JARED' ^(t) 14:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Jared. The mixed treatment of sports and disciplines is essentially a historical relic; it's simply the way things have been done and no one has made the effort to change it. Consistency would be good, but with the wonderful things called "redirects" the page location is not a big priority for me. If you want to undertake changing things, please go ahead. My preference would be to have pages for each discipline (that is, breaking out the two disciplines of "Volleyball" and "Beach volleyball" from the single page) rather than agglomerating. An "Aquatics at the xxxx Summer Olympics" page would be more of a disambiguation page than anything else, pointing to the various pages on disciplines. The same would be true for Canoe/Kayak, Gymnastics, Volleyball, etc. But again, my priorities are 1) people can find what they're looking for; 2) consistency; 3) disciplines rather than sports. #1 is satisfied with the current arrangement, beyond that I care less. -- Jonel | Speak 15:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I definitely think that there should be pages for each discipline, but I think the main pages should be the actual sport that is falls under. So for now, I'll set up the 2008 page so that Aquatics is just a brief "This is what's happening under the sport of aquatics" and just go right into subpages for each. That way it'll be consistant, but still have what has been there for a while. Then maybe I'll go into existing pages and see what I can do. → JARED ^(t) 15:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jared & Jonel, please allow me to offer my opinion here. The definition of a "discipline" is based on the governing sports federation. For example, FINA covers all the aquatics disciplines, so that's why the IOC calls it a single sport. Sometimes, this definition seems weird. For example, FIS governs all the skiing disciplines — but not biathlon. I think most people would consider biathlon and cross-country skiing as closer than alpine skiing and cross-country, yet it is alpine and cross-country that are both part of "one sport". How about the sliding events — the bobsled federation covers skeleton, but luge has it's own federation, so there are actually two sliding "sports" instead of one (or three) as you might expect.

Anyway, my point is that I strongly believe that a "one size fits all" policy of how we handle sports & disciplines on Wikipedia is bound to result in some goofiness. Some disciplines are quite "large" and deserve their own treatment. Some are just 1-2 events, and can be covered together. For example, I see no value in a "Skating at the 2010 Winter Olympics" page as a portal to such diverse disciplines as figure skating and speed skating. Figure skating and speed skating ought to be explicitely identified on the navigation box, and other places where a list of sports is mentioned. That's what people are going to look for, and a pedantically-correct structure within Wikipedia that puts those sports one level beneath the "Skating" heading will be confusing. Similarly, the four aquatics disciplines all should be on the {{EventsAt2008SummerOlympics}}. People are going to look for Swimming, Diving, etc. and I am certain that some will be confused by having to go through Aquatics first.

On the other hand, should it seem like I'm arguing the point about breaking every discipline out to the same level, I think all 4 cycling disciplines can easily be handled by a single Cycling at the 2008 Summer Olympics "portal" to individual events, as should the 3 disciplines of Gymnastics at the 2008 Summer Olympics. I don't want to see the navigation box expanded so that trampoline, BMX cycling, slalom canoeing, beach volleyball etc. are all listed at the same level as the "full" sports.

Note that I'm not suggesting that we delete Aquatics at the 2008 Summer Olympics — it is useful as now written. It makes a perfect spot to explain what "aquatics" is, explain the FINA linkage, etc. I did something similar for Nordic skiing at the 1964 Winter Olympics (for example). But it is a secondary article, so fans of specific sports like ski jumping and cross-country can use their respective navigation structures that we're established.

To summarize — I think we actually got it right for 2004, and I wouldn't revamp that whole structure for 2008. I hope you see my points! Andrwsc 02:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About User:2005

I see that you've had trouble with this User:2005 in the past. Lately he has been disrupting me as well. His main behavioral problem is that he is an unscrupulous editor, who does not think about others before editing, reverting, or deleting their work. He is quite inconsiderate, and usually it's "his way or the highway". Plus, he never follows the "3 revert rule". Should we do something about this? Cloudreaver 05:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]