User talk:ThePromenader/archive for mediation

Removed "Disputed" tag.

the "Disputed" tag for the upcoming mediation - Stevage was right to metion that. It remains that you have imposed a theme founded by no factual sources. Everything contested is on the Talk:Paris page - there you can either prove me wrong and cite your sources, or leave the article be corrected or correct it yourself. Should you do as usual do nothing I will be going ahead (again) with corrections, let's say this weekend, and should you revert again without meeting any of the above you will just be making the already evident page appropriation case stronger. THEPROMENADER 22:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

User Angelo94/Tonio94

Will you stop trying to paint me as someone "bad"? I went to check up on the above user this morning and saw the message you left him - You know full well that he will be alerted to my treatment of his contribution without your help, and that he would see my name for himself, so there was really no need to "indicate" it. And, if you please, the section was moved, not removed as you insinuated. Lastly, If ever you engage in any debate, come straight out and say what you mean directly to the person targeted. It will make discussion much simpler, over the table, and waylay potential feelings of animosity. Thank you.

THEPROMENADER 17:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

'Area' reverts, "metropolitan Paris" changes

Hardouin,

You may edit edits but you will not revert to your own previous version. Reverting such is a show of arrogance - it discredits (rather, ignores) the improvements a contributor was trying to make, and sends a message that you 'know better'. If you did know better no one would have any problem with the article as you wrote it, so go figure.

May I remind you that you have a whole slew of arguements to answer to, and I have not been the only one to ask you to do this. Your answer to El_C was rather blithe I may say. I am taking my time with the edits but will install them once they're ready - it's still not too late to discredit my arguments by providing references proving them false. You will not ignore arguments and pre-emptive discussion - it's arrogant and rude, and again suggests that 'you know better' - if you did know better you would provide references to prove it. THEPROMENADER 09:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Where will your arrogant foolishness end? You are enforcing a POV unsupported by any publication. Stop. THEPROMENADER 13:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Revert-o-Rama bis bis bis

Hardouin, Your behaviour is inexcusable. If you would like to voice your very minority personal opinions as fact without any contest from others, perhaps you should start a publication of your own. This is Wiki, where one is expected to a) publish fact b) in a way accessible to others c) in accepting that others may also wish to contribute to the same subject in d) participating in discussions based on reason, not opinions, and e) do so in a civil, honest and straightforward manner. So far you have failed on all counts. THEPROMENADER 20:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)  

I just saw your little contribution to El_C's talk page. I would have asked him to contact you directly but that is for him to decide. As for your comments there, again you attack vehemently nothing in particular in my behaviour in an effort to make me look 'bad'. Stop this please. I contest the veracity of what you write, not 'you' - you would make life much easier for yourself would you separate yourself from fact, as the facts get on quite fine without us after we leave them. Opinion, of course, is another matter.

By the way, for the sake of mediation, I archived the talk messages you eliminated.THEPROMENADER 22:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Paris Teapot

You have really surpassed yourself these past days. At least fourteen reverts, sock-puppetry, insults, efforts at manipulation, still no answer to talk page arguments and still no references pertaining to things existing. You have had more than ample time to factually prove your point but it seems that you are unable to. I really can't see how you can justify such bad behaviour - and that in with the goal of blocking people whose only goal is making the page and its facts standardized, common and widely verifiable.

THEPROMENADER 22:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Incendiary prose

How 'facile'. I have anulled your reverts to good-faith edits - nothing else.

I'll have you know that I archive every 'call to attention' post I leave you - only you think it's offensive. Actually it's quite revealing.

THEPROMENADER 22:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the prose.

I revert your reverts and nothing else. Should we call these "good-faith reverts" then? THEPROMENADER 22:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Paris page conflict (moved from main talk page)

Note to eventual readers: I am in an edit conflict with the Wikipedian Hardouin. Hardouin has managed over one year to rewrite most of the Paris page around a rather far-flung theory contained in no reference work in existence, but constantly reverts any changes to it. He is not pleased to be contested as one can see. Contrary to the below, I have always cited my sources - it was I who began the 'references' section on the page in question. The same user has never engaged in pre-emptive discussion and ignores all notes, criticisms and propositions for improvement added to the talk page, but reverts irrevociably any text changes not his own. From time to time it I have left 'call to attention' and 'call to order' personal messages on Hardouin's talk page - None were incendiary, and they can all be found here where I keep them for the upcoming mediation case. In recent days the conflict has gotten worse with the same user resorting to baseless accusations (cough), insults and sock-puppetry. Sorry to note this here, but to leave the below I must defend myself. I would also appreciate any input from anyone knowledgable on all things Paris - anything for a breath of lucidity in this matter. All the mess is at Paris so please feel free to judge for yourselves. This entry will be going to an archive page in a few days. THEPROMENADER 22:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Your incendiary prose

Stop writing incendiary messages on my talk page, I will simply remove and ignore them. You have no sense of shame when you accuse me of making reverts (just check the number of times you have reverted my edits in the past weeks and days) or not providing references (cough). Making accusations is all you have ever done. I have never not even once heard you recognize an error or admit that even a tiny little bit of what I say could be true. Even when I prove you blatantly wrong about the density of US metropolitan areas, you immediately find a facile argument to say that it proves nothing and that you are right anyway. This is beyond hopeless. Hardouin 22:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, sure, your edits are good-faith, but mine are not. Of course! Since you live in France, you should meditate this French saying: "Regarde la poutre qui est dans ton oeil avant de regarder le brin de paille dans l'oeil de ton voisin". Hardouin 22:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)