User talk:Minato ku

Paris Métro Line 12

Hi, first of all welcome to Wikipedia!

I notice you made this change. It would be very helpful if you could provide the name of the source you used as well as saying that it had a source - please see WP:V for more information and the reasons why we need to verify our information. If you need any help incorporating source information into articles, please don't hesitate to ask on my talk page.

Thanks!

— superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 12:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promenader's new assault

Promenader is on the rampage again. This time he wants to delete the template showing communes in the metropolitan area of Paris. I don't know where this guy will stop to remove any notion of an agglomeration of Paris. He has single-handedly listed the template for deletion ([1]), completely disregarding the fact that several editors have contributed to this template and that he is the sole person asking for its deletion. He has written a message on the template's talk page which you can check here: Template talk:Paris Metropolitan Area#This Template is pointless.. Last but not least he has also single-handedly removed the template from the 20 arrondissements of Paris, because according to him these arrondissements have nothing to do with the suburban communes: [2], [3], [4], etc. Complete denial of a Greater Paris, and that just when an administrative "Grand Paris" is going to be created by French authorities next year! This guy really has a problem. Hardouin (talk) 16:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promenader has also created an entry at Templates for deletion: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 November 20#Template:Paris Metropolitan Area. You can vote there to keep or delete the template. Hardouin (talk) 17:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go again

The Île-de-France (région) article was fully protected due to the edit war waged by User:ThePromenader who wants to have the "Paris metropolitan area" removed from the article (check the history of the article for more information), then last month it was unprotected to allow good faith editors to edit the article, and sure enough one month later ThePromenader has renewed his edit war and deleted the "Paris metropolitan area" from the lead of the article, by claiming that it was an "uninformative phrase" ([5]). We've been through all that already, I know it's really tiring, but as long as the guy is not banned from editing the Paris related articles, all we can do is check these articles and reinstate the information he keeps deleting. Please have a look. Alone I can't do much. Hardouin (talk) 15:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Downtown" Paris

Hello. I was wondering if you happened to know what is considered Paris' "downtown" or "CBD"? I'm talking specifically about the districts within the city proper (commune) and not La Defense. I know there is an area considered the CBD, but can't think of its name at the moment. --Criticalthinker (talk) 11:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paris CBD is generally know as QCA, (quartier central des Affaire, sot the freench trad of CBD), it is located in the 1st 2nd 8th 9th, northern 16th and southern 17th arrondissements. [6] Minato ku (talk) 08:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Violations of WP:NPA

Kindly read WP:NPA and stop implying that everybody who doesn't agree with you is a racist.Jeppiz (talk) 21:38, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have never said that, I said that there is a problem for some people to accecpt some realities about Paris that are more part of the city than the tourist clichés. Most of the big talk about Paris articles seems based on the representation of Paris' modernity, Paris' economic power and Paris' diversity. Basicly most of the things that show a different point of view that the stereotypes.

This doesn't means that those people are racist, not at all. Minato ku (talk) 08:39, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Jeppiz (talk) 19:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paris Metropolitan Area

Hello. I have suggested to move Paris aire urbaine to Paris Metropolitan Area. Feel free to give your opinion. You can see the discussion here: Talk:Paris_aire_urbaine#Requested_move. Der Statistiker (talk) 16:54, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paris

Don't edit war, please: use the talk page if you wish to change the consensus to the image that has been there for some time. - SchroCat (talk) 20:34, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Laisse tomber, c'est en tout cas ce que je fais. Ça ne fait déjà aucun sens en soi de vouloir améliorer l'article de en:WP, mais surtout de le faire dans ces conditions. Dans le meilleurs des cas tu serviras de faire-valoir car 5% de tes suggestions auront été prises en compte, dans le pire des cas tu vas servir de bouc émissaire. L’atmosphère est puante, il y a du taf sur fr:WP. v_atekor (talk) 14:21, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

September 2014

Your recent editing history at Paris shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:26, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

November 2014

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hrs for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Paris. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:01, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Minato ku (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hello. I am a bit confused. I deleted one data from the tourist section at 16:42 on 15 November 2014, then I deleted it again at 23:42 on 15 November 2014. ThePromenader reverted my edit, and I didn't delete it a 3rd time, even if I clearly explained on the talk page that this data is misleading. Then, at 08:06 on 16 November 2014 I added a sentence in the tourist section about tourism expenditure in the Paris Region. This is not a revert, since I added something that was not in the section (and I did not delete a 3rd time the, in my opinion, misleading data that I had deleted the day before). My edit was reverted by Coldcreation at 10:57 on 16 November 2014 (he deleted the sentence and the data I had just added in the section). I restored my sentence and the data at 11:44 on 16 November 2014. This would count as one revert. I restored the sentence and the data again at 12:17 on 16 November 2014. This would count as a 2nd revert. And then I made no more edits. I don't see where I broke the 3 revert rule here. It's especially discouraging because I add a sentence and some information in good faith in the article, then Coldcreation deletes it 3 times ([7], [8], [9]), and I end up being blocked. Minato ku (talk) 23:52, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Block has expired, user is no longer blocked. ‑Scottywong | converse _ 05:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Future Perfect at Sunrise, have you seen my request?
"An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period". 16:42, 23:42, 11:44 and 12:17 are within 24 hours of each other. Now do you understand why you are blocked? Origamite^ⓣⓒ 18:58, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paris: Metropolitan area or urban area

Hello Minato ku. While you are correct in that metropolitan area is widely used, I do not think it is a good measure of a cities size for comparisons. As you can see from the illustration, the metropolitan area covers an area more than double that of the urban area, and includes mostly sub-urban and rural areas. I don't think the populations of these areas are very indicative of the size of Paris. Furthermore, the definitions used vary from country to country. While there are minor variations in the definitions of urban area, it is widely accepted to be defined as urban area within 200 metres, excluding minor settlements.

Also, the sentence is initially referring to built-up area, and then goes on to refer to Paris' metropolitan area, which is less helpful and might even be misleading.

Regards,

Rob984 (talk) 12:56, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rob984, If you think that metropolitan area is not a propre why to define a city, you should delete the mention of metropolitan area in the introduction of every other cities articles, not just in Paris article. If every other cities articles use the metropolitan area in the introduction, this number should remain in Paris article introduction.

Unlike what you have wrote to justify your edit in the article, in French case, metropolitan areas are not indicative of a countries' density because metropolitan areas are calculated using commute patterns. A high density area does not make a more populated metropolitan area. Minato ku (talk) 19:58, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite every other city, but articles for French cities do seem to all have metropolitan area—which is fine since they all use the same definition. Why not mention both figures, like London and Barcelona? And yes but a denser population surrounding a city would facilitate a larger commuter population. Of course this also depends on other factors such as transport and jobs, but the distance from a city is definitely a significant factor. Rob984 (talk) 21:31, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rob984. So, you should have keep metropolitan area population in the introduction by modifying the sentence rather than just remplacing it with urban area population.

About the idea that density facilitates large metropolitan areas, French metropolitan areas examples show that it is not the case. Lille has a less populated metropolitan area than Toulouse despite Lille being in a much more densely populated region (both cities have similar size). Minato ku (talk) 18:53, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Minato ku. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Minato ku. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]