Just wanted to let you know that I have filed for mediation, and the Paris page has a new addition that it will wear until you can cite factual sources speaking of Paris in the terms you use. I should have done this months ago. THEPROMENADER 23:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply

For the second time, you will leave the disputed tag where it is. You will prove that your misleading writ is factual truth and common usage, you will allow your debunked theories to be corrected, otherwise you will leave the page as it is. The argument "he's the only one" may apply to individualist behaviour such as page appropriation and reverting (such as your own), but in a question of one contesting evident factual error and POV it is a silly one to make. "The neutrality and factual accuracy of this article are disputed." There is a dispute. Everything I contest is detailed in the talk page. Stop grasping at straws in your desperate efforts to waylay resistance. Answer to the above conditions or leave the page as it is. THEPROMENADER 08:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply

For a THIRD time, you will answer to the disputed "facts" where the dispute is, and the dispute will end. You have answered to nothing until present, so you will leave the tag where it is. THEPROMENADER 13:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply

For a FOURTH time: leave the tag where it is. You have answered to nothing and changed nothing. Your writ is of your own invention and comes from no citable reference; if this is false, you have yet to prove it. You use the term "Greater Paris" but once, and when you do you misuse it. Stevage also admitted he knew little on the subject - this is not the case with me. Stop grasping at straws. You will answer to your misconceptions, allow improvement or you prolong the dispute. Period. I will continue to replace the tag as long as you remove it without fulfilling the above conditions, so don't bother. You're only making yourself look more foolish and accomplishing nothing. And answer to the Paris dispute on the Paris Talk page. THEPROMENADER 23:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply

PS: Here's some reading for you: Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute and Wikipedia:Accuracy_dispute. Your writing qualifies for almost all of both tag's requisites (when only one is needed to place it). Also read carefully how to resolve disputes - namely verification - and the reasons why it is wrong to remove the tag without dispute resolution. THEPROMENADER 00:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Whoa, you two. Time to chill. Both of you. I don't even see Hardouin's answers but I bet he needs to chill too :) Edit warring is not fun. Maybe time for a little mediation with an experienced mediator? Maybe there's a WP page where you can get some advice, find a friendly disinterested party etc? But this went beyond petty a long time ago. Seriously. Good luck sorting it out. Stevage 00:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply

For the FIFTH time, you will not remove the tag until you cite referencable sources that use the terms you have chosen for the subjects you insist on using them for, allow corrections to the abovementioned errors or you will change them yourself. Unless you fulfil these conditions the tag remains. Period.

It's nice to see that it's bringing some newcomers to the page though. Don't stomp your footprint all over their contributions too, please.

THEPROMENADER 23:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply

For the SIXTH time, leave the tag where it is. Stevage has not even begun to try to sort out your network of disinformation, nor wants to. The talk page contains concrete proof of your misconceptions and you have yet to correct, discredit or answer to them. You must do one of the above before the dispute will end. Read and re-read all of it if you wish again to plead short memory. You have no case. THEPROMENADER 23:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply

PS: By the way, Stevage thought that the my misgivings with the article ended at a "choice of words". This is of course not the case, and you know full well I told him so later. This failed attempt at tag removal "justification" aside, if you really want to try the "consensus" card, would you like me to play it too? Just now I can think of two occasions where you have been asked specifically to remove the "metropolitan area" apellation where it was unfit for use. Now that I think of it it would make a strong addition to the talk page exposition. Thanks for the idea. THEPROMENADER 23:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply

For the SEVENTH time, you will leave the disputed tag where it is until you can cite referenciable sources that speak of Paris as you do. By removing it without doing so, you are only making yourself look foolish. Thank you. THEPROMENADER 20:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Hardouin,

I can't at all appreciate some of the misleading "explanations" you left on Stevage's talk page.

• The "almost the same" calculations are your own; although both numbers are available on the iNSEE site, I have never seen any publication or organisation juggle them in this way. Why would they need to? Choose IDF or aire urbaine - Period. Being "almost the same" don't make them exchangable. Period.
• Adding "as the figures show" after the above makes it sound official. The IDF and aire urbaine census numbers are official, but your personal calculation is not.
• "When economists and demographers do not possess data for the aire urbaine of Paris" - What is this, what are you suggesting? It looks as if you are again trying to make apples as oranges by putting them in the same phrase: demographers use either IDF or aire urbaine figures, and economists use IDF and departemental figures. Period. Do not put words in other people's mouths.
• "wants to replace the aire urbaine/metropolitan area of Paris and replace them with "Île-de-France"" - this is flatly untrue. Do not put words in my mouth. Read the Economy edit you reverted so many times if you need proof.
• Île-de-France is an administrative region like a province or a county. How can you suggest replacing this with a statistical area? I
• I have to chuckle at your telling us foreigners what foreigners understand best.
• "French people themselves almost always refer to Île-de-France as the "région parisienne" - this is true.
• "...because in their mind the Île-de-France région is simply the metropolitan area of Paris." - How can you associate this with the former phrase? If I was to apply an adjective to this, I would call it "bald-faced." Most French people don't know what an "aire urbaine" is, let alone a metropolitan area. Most aren't even aware of the concept.

And why are you not discussing the Paris article on the Paris talk page? In light of the above, perhaps I can understand, but this is not normal practice. THEPROMENADER 19:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Just so you know that I am maintaining my objectivity, I have been doing much research on the various ways foreigners (namely Americans) use the "metropolitan area" term as far as Paris is concerned. Results are varied: some sources (namely medical organisations and the like) use it to generally speak of the Île-de-France, and some define it as something closer to something resembling an agglomeration - take MSN Encarta's article on Paris. Yet when it comes to discussing anything statistical or precise this term is never used "as is" - it is always followed by some sort of explanation. Demographica is the only exception I could find, and even they put "île-de-France" right next to it in brackets - but the source data below it comes from only one source.

I'm sorry but even after all my research I still conclude that even for "general description" passages "metropolitan area" is still a description too imprecise to use for an article that is to be deemed encyclopedic, and for more precise subjects where the "source region" term is to be used, not suitable at all. It is most probably for this ambiguity that no encyclopedia or citable reference in existence uses it.

Cordially,

THEPROMENADER 00:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply

I've removed 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) reply

I left most everything you re-added to the Paris article save As a result of these tendencies, at the 1999 census only 18.5% of the inhabitants of the statistical metropolitan area of Paris lived in the city of Paris proper. - for the whys, I'm sure we both know and we don't have to go through it all again.

As for the infobox: I admire your creating and contributing infoboxes for all of France's major cities, but unfortunately you have used this to promote your 'metropolitan area==city' agenda, and this we have gone over thousands of times already. If you absolutely cannot do without speaking of this in some way, I suggest starting a 'Paris metropolitan area' article much like most other "(big city) metropolitan area" articles in existence. I do understand that this would be next to impossible to do in a credible way (anything outside of statitstics, that is!), and this for all the reasons I listed on the Paris Talk page. Speaking of that, have you gotten around to answering those questions yet? THEPROMENADER 22:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC) reply

I appreciate you've put a lot of effort into these infoboxes for Paris, Marseilles, Strasbourg etc, but each city having a separate template defeats the purpose of the template. The articles should use either the Template:French commune infobox or perhaps a single infobox for the major cities such as Paris and Marseilles. Green Giant 01:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks for responding to the above question. First of all lets be absolutely clear, I don't support the Promenader unquestioningly. I try my best to take a neutral look at things and if I am wrong I hold up my hands - we are all only human at the end of the day. As to the infobox issue, I agree it is a complex issue and needs some careful thought, so I am all ears and hands. On the Mumbai infobox are you referring to the area figure? Green Giant 02:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC) reply

I had a look at the Mumbai infobox and it makes complete sense to me to distinguish the city and the metropolis. I have corrected the figures on the Mumbai article and pointed out that the Municipal Corporation thinks it governs an area of 437.71 km² and 11 million people. It would be good to take your infobox idea as a model for the French cities Green Giant 03:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC) reply

I have read the above and replaced the original city/metro infobox until a new one is made. I'm not quite sure if this was the proper conclusion to your conversation but this is what I did. THEPROMENADER 10:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC) reply

I have read your conversation with Green Giant with much attention - and I don't see much call for my allowing your last revert - but all the same. Still you confuse people with mixed ambiguities - and I'm almost sure the 'metropolis' GG speaks of above is in fact an agglomeration, not farmland. I suggest you ask him yourself. Anyhow, there's other things for you to answer to on the Talk:Paris page. THEPROMENADER 21:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi, Hardouin. I recently made some changes to this template to create links from the numbers of arrondissements, cantons and communes in each région to corresponding lists. I was trying to follow the model that is used in the département template. I notice that you seem to have reverted these changes without making any comments why. Do you have any particular reasons for your change, or would you mind if I reverted your changes? Regards, Kiwipete 20:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Hello,

I asked you on the Paris talk page for a source for the 2004 Aire Urbaine estimation in your infobox - I wasn't able to find it anywhere, even on the INSEE site. Could you answer this please?

THEPROMENADER 15:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC) reply

• Hi Hardouin, I have noticed you edit many french articles in American English. As far as I can see there is a concensus where only articles relating to American matters are edited in American English as after discussions (Can't find them sorry, if you know, give us a link) it transpired that British English is used in the European Union, the Commonwealth and many a countries in the world whereas American English is only used in software writing and the USofA. It also transpired that British English is taught in France and it would be more approrpiate to use it in articles for say, French articles. I have reverted your edit on the Pontoise article (see Transport). I would also like to reduce the size of images in commune infoboxes as the said infoboxes are notoriously large. Regards, Captain scarlet 11:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC) reply

I'm sorry, but as far as I know there is a consensus to use whatever English the editor wishes to use, except for those articles dealing with countries where British English spelling is used. It is frowned upon to change the spelling of editors who use American spelling, and personally I find particularly irritating the ayatollahs of British English, who seem to be spending their time reverting all American spellings on Wikipedia. FYI in French schools both American and British English spelling are accepted. As long as it's not French English spelling, the teacher is happy! And also, please consider that the majority of English speakers live in the US (not in the UK or its former colonies), so the highest likelihood is that a reader of Wikipedia (English version) will be American and used to American spelling. As for the infobox, the size is 300px, it was decided (not by me) a long time ago. If the infoboxes are too large, just use a higher resolution for your screen. Hardouin 13:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC) reply

• Hi. I do not agree with the first points you have made and will continue to restrict the use (sorry, usage) of English as opposed to American. Also commenting on my screen resolution is rather inappropriate, plus there's little more i can do to make it bigger. As much as you may find it irritating to see Transportation changed to Transport or Zs to Ss, it has been remarked that French articles should be edited in English rather than American, this is true on En:Wikipedia as well as Fr:Wikipedia where many Wikipedians frown the use of American altogether. Kind Regards, Captain scarlet 13:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC) reply

You can find the official policy here: [1]. I quote:

"In June 2005, the Arbitration Committee ruled that, when either of two styles is acceptable, it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change. For example, with respect to British spelling as opposed to American spelling, it would only be acceptable to change from American spelling to British spelling if the article concerned a British topic. Revert warring over optional styles is unacceptable; if the article uses colour rather than color, it would be wrong to switch simply to change styles, although editors should ensure that articles are internally consistent. If in doubt, defer to the style used by the first major contributor."

Pontoise (or any other French commune) is not a British topic, so your change from American spelling to British spelling is not acceptable as per the official policy. Hardouin 13:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC) reply

• Should the article then be copied to a new english article ? One in En:Wikipedia and how's about Us:Wikipedias... Good day ! — Captain scarlet 13:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi. I've noticed your adding your new template to many French cities - you might as well stop until we reach consensus about it on the Paris page. You can't just go imposing your will like that in total disregard above all other acivity in the same direction - do not ignore preceding propositions, questions and ongoing discussions on the same subject you are treating please, and have some respect for others. Thanks.

THEPROMENADER 09:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC) reply

If you have improvements to make in the Intro, please discuss them on the Talk page of Paris. You completely reverted my changes to the intro without one word as to why. -- Gnetwerker 17:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC) reply

I suggest that you read WP:LEAD. Grouping those two facts does not add to the accessability and understanding of the intro to the average reader. You also did much more than grouping those things -- you moved several other sentences around, essentially taking the lead back to its (IMO) confusing former state, the apparent result of the ongoing edit war. -- Gnetwerker 18:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC) reply

You said "Check Rome or Madrid. Administrative infos are always grouped at the beginning of the intro." -- quite the contrary, those pages (more so Rome) are models of clarity compared to the mess that was Paris. But in any case this is not a trend -- look at New York City and London -- these are what I looked at while rewriting Paris. Please discuss on Talk page. -- Gnetwerker 18:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC) reply

I had no intention of re-adding the Hilter photo -- if I did it inadvertently, I will remove it. While your edit may be consistent with Rome, because of the complexity of the Paris nomenclature, it confuses the opening sentences of the lead. Besides, WP:LEAD is the guide here, not Rome. The ranking, as you point out, is in the body, so doesn't need to be run in the lead, which already says Paris is a leading city. -- Gnetwerker 19:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Happy to re-add leading city in a way that doesn't screw up the lead, and the dates for pop numbers are spelled out in detail below -- the intro should contain the most recent dates, and they can be updated regularly since Wikipedia is not paper. -- Gnetwerker 19:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Actually, what is going on here is not 'tricks': is called 'building consensus'. The consensus of two that I was speaking of was only on the point of the infobox thinning in the present discussion alone - I could count the attempts by myself, Green Giant and Stevage to thin things down, all of these reverted by you, but we are all quite aware of these so I but give them mention in our discussion. I did not count Capitan Scarlet vote in anything thus far - but even before this, consensus was already more than two across several points quite clearly outlined in the discussion.

I'm not angry at your leaving rather misleading attempts at denigration of myself on other people's talk pages, but I don't really see the point in it. I think it would be better for the sake of the overall editing atmosphere here that you stick to parlaying facts, and that you show some respect for other contributor's wish to do so.

I honestly do admire the seeming wealth/resources of your knowledge, and think that you really can/do contribute a lot to Wiki, but for readers and contributors alike to fully appreciate your talents, you must work towards the common goal that is making real and referenced information available and accessible (in all senses of the term) to the greatest possible public. It is the basic facts we must relate first, and then and only then can we continue onwards towards other 'points of view' - but even these must be referenceable. It is only natural that with time and more knowledgable contributors that the article fall into this line - it would be great if, instead of resisting all movement in this direction, that you put your talents to use and help us attain this goal.

THEPROMENADER 22:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC) reply

I don't really understand your aggressive attitude. The only person I could be certain of hearing from about the Paris article is you. Call Metroplolitan an 'oubli'. As for the rest and the tone of all this, I find it to be quite overheated, provocating and quite immature - if you are indeed a partisan of reason, I suggest you find another approach. THEPROMENADER 23:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC) reply

I cannot but specluate on what your real motives are, but here you have gone too far. Nowhere anywhere have I ever criticized you for anything other than the quality of what you write and how you write it - yet your only answer to any of this has personal attacks that have nothing to do with any edit. To insinuate that I am some sort of hacker using (insinuatively) illegal means to pry into the lives of others - what sort of nonsense is this? What would be my goal in doing such a thing?

You obviously give Wiki too much importance as a reflection of your own personna - and forget that for others it is not the same. Please desist with your constant personal harassment and inventive accusations - only in discussing fact can we ever hope to work together. Thank you.

THEPROMENADER 13:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply

If you're ashamed of your behavior, then change it, instead of lashing out at people who point out that behavior. I, for one, do not stalk other users as you have done repeatedly in the previous months. Hardouin 13:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Here's the message I left on every talkpage containing the 'Large French Cities' infobox:

As a result of some discussion over the past weeks, there is an updated template available for perusal in its 'published ' form (filled with data) here - all comments welcome. -- THEPROMENADER 07:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Again you've gone to new lows and crossed a new line. I don't know whose talk page you had to read to dig up that little info, but placing it in an article discussion for all to see is going more than a bit far. Only someone actually tracking me could find that sort of information, but now it is open for any article passerby to see. Nor do I see how you could make an excuse for even mentioning it - are there hyphens in 'Place Monge'? You were telling me 'where' to 'pay attention'? Your intent was obvious, so again I must ask you to desist from engaging in a less than desirable and quite immature behaviour that can bring no good to Wiki. THEPROMENADER 21:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Paranoia again? You're the one publicly disclosing your life, your profession, you whereabouts to everybody. And now you say you want everything to remain private? Again you're not being very logical. If you don't want people to know anything about you, then don't say anything in the first place. But then, we both know that your baseless accusation is just motivated by anger after I revealed your stalking of User:Metropolitan. Hardouin 11:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC) reply

I divulge what personal info I want to who I please, and you won't see my address on my personal page or in any article. To find this sort of information one has to a) know me b) take an active interest in my doings and c) read every post to every article and every user page I make. And you're calling me a stalker?

Also, let me remind you that it is your sock-puppetry that created circumstances propitious to doubt about an eventual repetition of the same behaviour. Even in light of this I offered an apology to Metropolitan - what have you done of the sort? THEPROMENADER 13:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC) reply

a- I have never created sock-puppets, and you have never offered an apology to me.

b- You talked about your location on Gnetwerker's talk page, and I was reading this talk page because I was exchanging messages with this user. Now stop your baseless accusations. Hardouin 13:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Please don't make your case worse for yourself - let me remind you that I am not alone as witness to your behaviour. My 'accusations', first off, are constatations, and second, I would not forward them without good reason. Now, if you please, I have work to do. Good day. THEPROMENADER 13:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC) reply

You claim things without proof. And when your accusations don't turn out the way you wanted, you say you have better things to do and you quit. Please, be a bit more mature. Good day to you too. Hardouin 13:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC) reply

You were quite silly that 'puppet' day, and the proof I posted with every turn of events - you are also quite silly to forward a denial, especially after all was practically forgotten and forgiven. Absolutely nothing has 'turned out' at all today - just more reams of text to no discernable goal nor conclusion.

I suggest that you hold with your personal affrontery. I do have a weakness in my overwhelming urge to clarify false allusions and accusations, so it would be best for both our time's sake that you bring an end to these. THEPROMENADER 14:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC) reply

I don't think that referring to people's disagreement with you as "personal affrontery" helps bolster your case. Hardouin 14:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Disagreement on what? You talk little of fact, mostly vague insinuations dictatively alluding to things I 'do' and what I 'impose' and what I 'try' and what my 'vision' is - without ever speaking clearly of anything at all! I even have to try to discern what point you trying to make before answering you - and still manage to bring out the basic question in it all - that you somehow always avoid answering. So enough of this roundabout merry-go-round - unless you want to answer clearly what's asked of you, vague exchanges such as these are a big waste of everyone's reading time. THEPROMENADER 17:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC) reply

- - There is absolutely no call for the removal of talk-page messages, especially when they are warnings. Insinuate with any adjective you like, but unless they are a personal attack their removal is unwarrented. Please find the original message again below, as it will be needed soon - I have begun a complaint proceedings against you and a documented warning on your user page is needed for that. This is it: - - :No more games. You have held reign with your opinons over pages of your choice thanks to the ignorance of other contributors, and enforced your unsolicited impositions in ignorance of all discussion and consensus (infoboxes being only the latest example) with unwarrented reverts - enough. Wiki is not your personal soapbox for imposing your personal opinions upon the unsuspecting, and this without any clear justification or direct citation whatsoever, as the patent truth. In my work upon the other French city pages I see that Paris is only the beginning of the unreferencable mess you've made - this must end. From now I will do everything within my power to bring an end your strictly personal, antisocial and anti-wiki nonsense. THEPROMENADER 19:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC) - - This is your third reminder. You have already shown enough unreasonable behavior for one night. THEPROMENADER 00:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC) reply

First of all, remember that removing messages, even on your own talkpage, is tantamount to vandalism so just leave the messages there until archiving time. Secondly, go get some sleep and come back refreshed with one proviso. This is just an encyclopedia article we are talking about, not life and death situations. Green Giant 01:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC) reply

I think you could tell exactly the same thing to Promenader. The guy needs to take a break and cool down a bit. Why is it that I edit Wikipedia today after a one week absence and within minutes of my edits I receive an incendiary message from this guy on my talk page? Then I find myself the subject of a complaint filed by the same guy, using all sorts of base arguments, including one patent lie(!), and absolutely no attention is given by this guy to the very serious points I raise at Talk:Paris. Hardouin 01:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Read Promenader's talkpage - I posted a similar message to him. I symptathise that it isn't pleasant to be the subject of a complaint, but arguing in the early hours of the morning won't solve anything. I think the solution to this problem is to calmly examine where the differences lie and if they cannot be resolved by mutual discussion, then we must resort to directing questions at official sources (either by searching websites/books or sending emails). Personally, I am so caught up with work that I barely have any time free until the weekend. However, I will try to see if we can't all agree on some things. In the meantime just relax, and take this all in your stride. Green Giant 02:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC) reply

This can fully wait until the week-end, don't worry. I, like you, have lots of other things to do during the week. Plus I have so many projects of articles to add information to (things totally different from Paris), and this Paris controversy has totally diverted me from my other projects. About Paris, I think we need third party mediation. Unfortunately there aren't that many users around that have good knowledge of French administration and statistics. The most knowlegeable user around that I know of is User:Metropolitan. From his edits and messages I gather he is a Frenchman, and I also realised he has quite good knowledge of French administrative nitty-gritties and demographics issues. Unfortunately, I am not sure that Promenader would accept Metropolitan as a mediator, or that Metropolitan would accept being a mediator, for that matter. Hardouin 02:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC) reply

====Regarding reversions [2] made on May 16 2006 ( UTC) to paris, etc etc====

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. The duration of the block is 24 hours. William M. Connolley 18:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC) reply

I've left messages on all the User talkpages that you've just visited, and saw your leavings there in my Watchlist. I won't be answering you in any of these places.

In your tour you insinuate much and put many words in my mouth; some of what you had to say - like your having left "proof" of the INSEE's "preference" for the AU when speaking of cities when, verified, it was a selective nothing of the kind - was frankly untrue, but in all, all of your posts had little to none had anything to do with fact. You also describe my "subtle knowledge of all Wiki rules" that somehow insinuates that I manipulated Wiki into banning you: that don't stand, man. You started an edit war, you took it across the WP:3RR line. End of story. This is far from the first time that you've done this in the almost year since I've known you, yet this is the first time I've reported you.

Even through your reams of postings you were unable to find anything 'wrong' with the new infobox - you even invented a few, like your "Mantes-la-Jolie" pointer "error" - not only is it an unanswerable fabrication of an argument: this will be the third time that I tell you that the point is moved by changing a number in the template data, so big deal. Again, I don't think you've even looked at the template.

I am sorry that you did not think to get into the discussion until you realised that we had already reached consensus - it has been a rare thing on the Paris page, I know. Perhaps in the future you will be more sociable and willing to discuss 'real' French fact with the ignorant fools we English Wikipedians are - and show us where to read the error of our ways. If not, you can't very well expect anyone to simply take your superior knowledge for granted on your explanations of how we should read between the lines you choose to show us - when you do show anything at all. As for your accusing we other users of not being "specialised" - what do you mean exactly, and who is to decide who qualifies? By stating this you would insinuate yourself, and this is quite... well, it depends on how you look at it.

To sum up: If you would like to prove the facutal wrong of things, than you will have to do so, and do so clearly. That aside, 'amount of work' is not an argument as it does not reflect fact, quality or readability; 'amount of time it stayed' is not an argument either for exactly the same reason. 'Other infoboxes' is not an argument either, as 'apple' cities cannot be made to look like 'orange' ones - and this one is even funny because there was no city infobox anywhere else on Wiki like yours! Lastly, your commenting on my 'views' of the 'unimportance' and 'irrelevence' of the AU - when I said nothing of the kind - really amount to nothing, because the AU info is there, and it is even I who defended it. Also on this note: I wouldn't call the differnces between the French UU and AU 'subtle'. Lastly, as I've already shown you twice before: if we were to speak of cities according to the INSEE, there would be only UU info - check " Zoom sur un Territoire - and if it weren't for the narrow consensus of two to one thanks to my intervention, there would be no UU or AU info at all. So, if anything, you should see that we a) have eliminated all that was complained about in the infobox and b) tried all the same to make everyone, even you, happy. Yet still you complain, and that in not in the most 'overhanded' of ways!

I could forgive and forget everything should you decide to use your knowledge towards fact and quality, but for now it seems that you use it as an 'upper hand' defense to keep others from impeding on your vision of how things should be. This would be fine would you be able to provide proof to your views, but the problem is that your propos for Paris is unlke anything seen anywhere else, and as reference you have been unable to provide anything more than an obscure study that speaks - and then, only hypothetically - of a city as you do! What are we, I, to think of this, especially when you defend it so vehemently - with an often purely personal propos that has little to do with fact or reason?

Even after all this, I would respect you even more would you decide to work towards our common goal - for sure your knowledge is of value here! But you must understand that Wiki is a place where we make knowledge available to others, it is not a repository where we leave a reflection of ourselves.

All this said, good night.

THEPROMENADER 01:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC) reply

...Would you hold these, please? These don't make you look very good as a Wikipedian and are hardly a replacement for fact. Concerning the target for this, it was the best way I could find to point out the area of 'untruth' without calling you outright a liar. I understand your misgivings and even the reasons behind your point of view but we are not here to create new realities around ourselves. Please remain civil and stick to fact. Thank you. THEPROMENADER 16:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Beg your pardon? What are you talking about? You're always making accusations and polluting my talk page with aggressive messages. Hardouin 01:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC) reply

     17:31:52 Talk:List of tallest structures in Paris . . Hardouin ( Talk | contribs) (childish Promenader editing other people's messages)

THEPROMENADER 07:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC) reply

You edit people's messages on a discussion page. That's the most childish thing I have ever seen. Discussion pages are here for people to express their opinions, not for you to correct and edit other people's opinions. Simply incredible! Hardouin 11:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Inserting a ^{citation needed} tag next to the fallacious claim indicated in the answer below? If you'd rather I could have just called the phrase what it was, but that wouldn't be very Wiki. Stop with the insinuations please; none of this is a replacement for fact. Thanks again. THEPROMENADER 14:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Leave it, you're making a fool of yourself. Hardouin 16:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC) reply

. . Hardouin ( Talk | contribs) (Sorry, but you're not going to succeed with your bullying attitude here.)

Hi again. Will you stop please? I edit a page, you follow and revert with insults, and you call me the "bully". If it will waylay the revert war you seem intent on creating, you can have your 'Metropolitan irrelevence', but I am dismayed that you are editing out of pride rather than fact and reason. Whatever - if you place pride over quality, you win. THEPROMENADER 13:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC) reply

C'est l'hôpital qui se moque de la charité. Promenader, you're making a fool of yourself again. Hardouin 13:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi, you have been blocked from editing for breaching WP:3RR. Please be more careful in the future. Thanks. El_C 02:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC) "unblock|El_C blocked me based on User:ThePromenader's claim that I reverted him more than three times. Not only I wasn't given the opportunity to defend myself (ever heard of the right of defense?), but I also believe El_C did not properly check the matter. Before blocking me, he should have read Talk:Île-de-France (région) where I explained what was wrong with ThePromenader's edit. He should also have read Talk:List of tallest structures in Paris to better understand the matter. Basically ThePromenader argues personal point of views about Paris and the Paris Region, and despite being called wrong by both User:Metropolitan and I, he persists in holding his POV and imposing it on Paris related articles. I insist we are already two users who have told him that his views are not correct (actually we are even three if you add User:Pedro carras who also disagreed with ThePromenader at Talk:Paris). What's particularly wicked here is that ThePromenader is using the 3RR noticeboard to settle accounts with me in relation with the three of us opposing his personal views, which is a complete abuse of the 3RR noticeboard. Please don't hesitate to ask Metropolitan and Pedro caras about the matter. reply

Comment - No matter the degree of conflict between editors, it can be settled in an instant by providing references and proof; when a contributor shows that he feels unobligated to do this, and becomes frankly insulting when not taken at his word and asked to provide written reference, this of course raises temperatures. When a contributor promotes an agenda that counters all reference works - when proven of course throws makes one question the validity of his other edits - which again only serves to raise temperatures when the same turns to reverting, as it seems his reasons for doing so are unfounded by fact or proof. Yet no matter how high temperatures become, there are certain rules here designed in the interest of preserving editing atmosphere that we just don't break. I have broken the WP:3RR rule once before with User:Hardouin, and I promised that I would not do so again - so of course I ask the same of he.

As for the "other arguments on other pages" included in the box above: Not only are they irrelevent to WP:3RR, but baseless. User:Hardouin, if pressured to actually discuss article content (usually after his reverting), is capable of ignoring the existence of all reliable reference - maps, encyclopedias, government organisations and their websites - in favour of his own affirmations presented as fact and attempts at 'comparative reasoning' - two things quite unusable on wiki - and declaring himself 'right' and others 'wrong'. When presented with fact I am only too pleased to consider an issue closed (take, for example, the very recent Paris Eductation discussion), but when I read "La Défense is in Paris," a declaration flagrantly untrue, it is only normal that I question it and, unfortunately, question most everything forwarded by the same author. The Paris Eductation discussion is again a good example - I paid an overparticular attention to the where and what of evidence forwarded, as the phrase in question originated from the same author as the above declaration. This does not help at all the editing atmosphere. THEPROMENADER 07:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC) reply

If you dispute the 3RR report, you are free to provide evidence to the contrary. If there is one (or more) users who dispute ThePromenader's version, s/he can be easily outreverted, yet this did not happen; and again, nor does the unblock disputes the 3RR claim itself in a substantive, clear, and well-document manner which is likely to meet with more consideration. Thanks. El_C 07:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC) reply

"Right of defense" - please see wikipedia is not a system of law, also please see WP:3RR your defense above appears to be based on being "right", WP:3RR has a few exceptions your reason is not one of them. -- pgk^{( talk)} 07:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Having just checked your link, it says nowhere that Wikipedia is not a system of law. Not a single reference to this. Hardouin 10:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi. I took the time to leave a full answer to your allegations in the Île-de-France_and_the_metropolitan_area_of_Paris of the Île-de-France (région) talk page. Take the time to answer reasonably please, with references to your claims. This concerns only your questionable allegations - no-one is arguing that the IDF and MA are similar in size, but your comparison between these in the introduction is of no informative value at all; it is even senseless, and I have very clearly outlined why. If you like I can ask for an outside opinion on this - as I don't have time for revert wars. Thank you. THEPROMENADER 16:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC) reply

One last note: We both know full well that "agglomératioin Parisienne" equates to neither "aire urbaine" nor "Île-de-France", and I don't know why you're wasting your time with this outrageous claim. You'd do well to provide referenced examples if you intend to continue, otherwise you'll just be wasting everyone else's time. Thanks. THEPROMENADER 20:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Look at your contributions page, then look at mine - this does not make the following an accusation, it proves it. You have not even worked on another section of an article than the ones I have contributed to over the last days - you have, without exception, trounced or reverted most every contirbution I have made over the past week. It is quite obvious that you are stalking me with purposeful intent - I would like you to stop. THEPROMENADER 23:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Promenader is getting hot-tempered again. Answered at User talk:El C. Hardouin 00:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Hot-tempered? No, tired - but that I can do something about. You must keep my contributions page bookmarked - how about leaving El_C's talkpage alone? I don't mind if you sully mine. You've given us quite a show tonight - goodnight. THEPROMENADER 00:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Once more, c'est l'hôpital qui se moque de la charité. Hardouin 00:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi Hardouin. After tonight, I'm really at the end of my rope with you: in a few short edits you've a) reinstated, for a fourth time, an unsuitable 'triple reference' leading to (only the front page of sites containing) numbers having nothing to do with the area spoken of in the article; b) similarily threatened to use "consensus" to enforce another unreferencable (because untrue, and obviously so) claim; c) made it seem, to the best of your insinuative ability, that I am somehow a "bad editor", and; d) accused me of being a 'bully' on another contributor's talk page, and this all because of my asking for references that of course you were unable to provide. By all means, file an WP:RfC if it will bring an end to this nonsense. In this post you can find two links that will take you there. THEPROMENADER 00:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Regarding reversions [3] made on July 14 2006 ( UTC) to Paris

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 8 hours.

I'm assuming the anon is you

William M. Connolley 16:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Must you turn every edit into a revert war? You just don't go and anhillate other contributor's work on baseless whim. Of course it is always easy to 'find' a reason for having reverted but in this case you can't - the list was merged only after being moved to a proper namespace, but now that you have put it back, it must be separated again. Please stop wasting time with this. THEPROMENADER 17:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

I hadn't even realised that you had filed a report against me, because I hadn't realised I had made a fourth revert. All the same, this is the second time you have filed a report against me after first breaking the WP:3RR rule yourself - although this time around wasn't quite as sneaky as the last. Using a page move to mask a revert wasn't very on the level - there should be no need for techniques like these. Stay true to fact, reality and reference and you will have no need to.

Although you clearly broke the rules yourself, I'll let it drop this time. In return I'll just ask that you contribute in referenced fact, not unverifiable opinion. Regards. THEPROMENADER 21:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

No I didn't break the 3RR, and the page move wasn't a masked revert. Your accusations and insinuations are both disgusting and unfounded. Hopefully at some point an admin will catch you for all your libelling and warmongering. And don't pretend to be a good guy not reporting my supposed breaking of the 3RR out of generosity. We both know that the only reason why you didn't report it is because there was no evidence of breaking the 3RR on my side. Hardouin 21:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Yes you did break the WP:3RR rule. From my talk page:

If clarification you would like, this was the version reverted to, but this became this with User:Metropolitan's edits, and this after many corrections/edits by yours truely. I don't know how it was done, perhaps by cut and paste or moving a precedent version, but in moving the page, User:Hardouin somehow reverted it to its former state.

...and with the three reverts after, that makes a grand total of four.

As for the rest of your denials and accusations - well, first off, the sockpuppetry, I made no accusation, but asked "what are the chances of this happening?" 1 anon IP making 1 edit (one revert) to the very 1 page where a revert had just ended - pretty slim, and in fact, next to zero. Time is no argument as you often edit in the wee hours, and if it's IP's you'd like to discuss, in looking at my Airport list of available frequencies, I can tap into any neighbour's Freebox; using proxies is no rocket science either. If I was to play this game you could never catch me : ) But I have no personal need to resort to tactics such as these because my edits are based on, or corrected by, verifiable fact. And not 'so-called' verifiable fact as you would insinuate - and I believe it is you who is always unable to come up with references when others question your claims. I'll also thank you for telling others that I revert, when the truth of the matter is that 99% of the time, when I make them, my reverts are to your reverts to my or other editor's contributions. Stick to the fact and truth, please, and you and your work be much more appreciated. THEPROMENADER 21:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

PS: I also find it odd that your sockpuppetry denial comes today - after saying absolutely nothing the day you were blocked and those following. I've never known you to hesitate in your claims before. THEPROMENADER 21:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Look, you're sick man. Not only I have no clue what you're talking about with your "proxy" and "airport", but I am also quite worried with you're confessed skills in using the most sophisticated internet technology. It was already quite scary to see you stalking User:Metropolitan and uncovering his address and girlfriend's name, but now you sound even more scary. You're crazy, you know that? Crazy and paranoid. I sincerely hope someone stops you at some point. Hardouin 21:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

LOL! I wonder if there's a " verifiably crazy and paranoid" barnstar - if not, invent it and give me one : ) I'm a graphic designer/webmaster, but even then, googling a URL is not rocket science. And again, it was User:Metropolitan who told me the still rather flabbergasting story of posting as girfriends and parent's home pages... not the contrary as you would again insinuate. THEPROMENADER 22:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

PS: I especially loved the "Proxy? I don't know no proxy!" argument : ) Goodnight. THEPROMENADER 22:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi Hardouin. Move reverting is evil. As your behaviour is going against not only fact but practically all Wiki protocol and conventions, you are simply wasting other people's time. Stop. THEPROMENADER 14:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi again, Hardouin. A more civil way of editing would be to either make improvements because they are clearly improvements, or if they are more drastic, to suggest them on the article talk page. It is not in the interest of an article for one Wikipedian to dog after another contributor to make changes just for the sake of making changes: nothing you modified - the 'however', the 'of the' language and an event (provost shot) that would be better put in the 'history of Paris' section than a section describing administration function - could be considered as an improvement. The 'name' section correction of course was.

I also couldn't help but notice your last night's Category:Skyscrapers in Paris 'category' additions - not only were these worthless and if anything damaging to article organisation, as the Category:Tall buildings and structures in Paris already exists, but they were obviously just an attempt to spread your war on fact to other pages, as you have not a single coherent argument to offer in the article where it is now. And please don't fill talk page discussions with unverifiable and nonsensical comparative cruft - answer with fact please, and stay on topic. And whatever your problem is with me, please get over it. You're not the only "Paris-Wiki" contributor now. thepromenader 15:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply

I suggest you read Paranoid personality disorder. Maybe this article will help you. And please stop writing nonsense on my talk page. Hardouin 16:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Hello again. Is there something untrue in anything I wrote? Shall we compare our contribution lists, to see the where and when of what was done? Thanks for the insult. Again, stick to fact and you'll have no problem here. Regards, thepromenader 17:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply

I put the talk page back the way it was - if you are going to tattle, best show everyone exactly what I did instead of hiding it and making all sorts of vague insinuations. Thanks. thepromenader 20:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC) reply

That wasn't a revert - care to compare? Yours was. Follow fact instead of me please. thepromenader 22:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC) reply

I have reverted your revert to my corrections. Although I know you would like to maintain your opinion that the medieval merchant prévôté was an overall governer of Paris, this is hardly the case, as crown law then held sway over all for anything 'control' of the city. As for the "shooting incident", it is exactly that - an incident - as a mayor would have been elected anyway. The article can only be so long, you know. My edits were perfectly founded, so respect please. thepromenader 22:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC) reply

And, as usual, you have reverted yet again without considering for a second what you reverted. Wiki can only be your mirror if you are alone, you know. Please stop wasting the time of others for nothing please. thepromenader 23:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Nice tactic trying to state that my edits were 'reverts' - we both know that nothing of the sort is true. thepromenader 23:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC) reply

I really suggest that you stop fooling about. It is a waste of both our time. Especially with you around, if it were factually wrong, do you really think I'd waste my time publishing it? You don't seem to have the same worries about the veracity of your own edits though. Which makes your reverting all the more annoying... please stop, as reverting is not a way to 'win' anything. thepromenader 23:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Problem is, it *is* factually wrong. Read Talk:Paris, and be a bit more humble. Hardouin 23:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Again you are interpreting fact in pretending that your interpretation of fact itself is fact. History is not at all as you have written it, as the Prévôts governing of the city was only partial. If you would like to talk about finding a clearer way of saying this, then let's talk, but you must stop following me around and reverting. Your defending what you have written exactly as you have written it even if if relates a message other than fact must end as well. You are here to relate written fact, not to showcase your own originality through publishing your quite personal interpretation of fact. I don't mind that you are 'most knowledgable', but this means nothing if what you publish isn't - or doesn't come across as - fact. thepromenader 00:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC) reply

None of the above has anything do do with the non sequitur and misleadingly-written 'shooting' incident I told you about one week before. Your behaviour is pure protectionism, nothing more. Would you believe that I had forgotten that the 'fact' passage in question was my own? Follow my example - correct the text to correct the text, not to correct the person who wrote it. I suggest a reading of WP:POINT. thepromenader 07:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Regarding above: Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. HawkerTyphoon 00:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Again I regret looking at your contributions - to see yet another talk page tour of... (biting tongue). Your even defending yourself is silly - we had a discussion on this weeks before, but you refused to follow it. After weeks of no change, but not minutes after the intended correction was made, you pounce and revert. And revert. And revert. And revert. Then you leave 'justification' - that you could have provided weeks before - that is not at all what you say it is. I suggest that you find a more civil way of contributing, and that you concentrate on fact, and not your own interpretation thereof. Goodnight. thepromenader 01:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC) reply

You have been blocked for 48 hours for breaking the 3RR on Paris. This is not your first violation - I sugest you read the policy carefully. -- Robdurbar 06:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Why wasn't User:ThePromenader sanctioned too? He broke the 3RR. I clearly indicated his four reverts at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Hardouin reported by User:ThePromenader (Result:48 hours). Hardouin 11:20, 24 August 2006 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Why wasn't User:ThePromenader sanctioned too? He broke the 3RR. I clearly indicated his four reverts at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Hardouin reported by User:ThePromenader (Result:48 hours). This is one sided if the other person who also broke the 3RR is not sanctioned.

Decline reason:

Whether or not another person was blocked doesn't change your block. Please discuss in the future instead of reverting. --Shell ^babelfish 11:39, 24 August 2006 (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.

You didn't answer my question. Why wasn't the other user sanctioned as well? Hardouin 11:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Hardouin, my edit was hardly a revert: First off, the edit you reverted is quite unlike its original form, and the rest was a correction outlined more than a week beforehand as you can see on the Paris talk page and just above. You chose not to answer, so I corrected. The first revert was yours, as always. thepromenader 11:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Yeah, its a little technicality of the 3RR that can seem a bit unfair, I guess, but Promenader's first edit wasn't a 'revert' - it was just an edit. He then reverted you three times which is allowed, and after that did not revert. -- Robdurbar 18:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC) reply

I didn't reply sooner as I havn't had the opportunity to log onto the internet much over the last day or so. I don't know if the 3RR can take into account the 'reversion' of edits over 8 days old, especially where numerous edits have taken place in between. If you do feel that Promenader is editing in bad faith and unfairly then you could always run an RfC against him or just go to the administrators' noticeboard when your block is finished.

However I think that the best way to go about now would be to:

• Drop this petty 'you broke the 3rr/no you did' debate with ThePromenader. Clearly that needs you both to agree that you will not break it, and to agree that you will not try and 'bend the rules'. You HAVE broken the 3rr many times on Paris and you will find little sympathy from any other Wikipedians whilst you continue to do so, no matter what aggrevation.
• If still you feel that the Paris article is wrong, open up a request for comment on the article on TP, if you feel that it is him who is causing the problem.

Most of all, please look to contribute to Wikipedia in a constructive way. It is not a place for people to get into fights about minor points, but to build a fun and informative encyclopedia. Robdurbar 21:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC) reply

The error of your revert to your 'own' errors is outlined in the concerned page.

This has been reported to several admins anyway, who will no doubt keep an eye on this. - I see no evidence of this. You would be quite kind to keep your complaints above board where they can be verified and refuted. THEPROMENADER 23:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC) reply

nota: the Paris page will have to be corrected sooner or later, unless you can find evidence that the nationwide commune system was a result of the Provost's shooting. The rest of your reverts were motivated by nothing but sheer pigheadedness and not at all in reader interest - and your 'disproving' statement was pure fabrication: there was no mention of 'medieval state' or even 'state' in anything you reverted, and what you reverted described qute completely the reasons for Paris' nearly-constant lack of political independance. Such behaviour is not what one can call good faith. THEPROMENADER 23:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC) reply

You are the one reverting, so you yourself should provide the evidence before you revert. Telling me "where to read" is not this. Again you are imposing an event that, only a sliver of importance in the creation of Paris' (France's) municipal commune system, would appear to be the entire cause. This does not take an entire talk page to "explain". Even the commune in France article (written largely by yourself - and quite a quite good piece of work I must add) shows that the commune was a next step to the office of provost's abolishment, not the shooting of the Provost himself.

Watch me for what? Those must have been some pretty interesting mails, and sent not to just anyone I'm sure. I'll count on the judgement of all concerned to look at facts and page histories for reality. The originality in much of what you write, and your vehemence in ensuring that it stay exactly as you wrote it, speaks of more personal ends and promoting personal theories than sharing information - this is quite obvious to anyone knowing anything about the subjects in which we contribute. Unfortunately there are few 'in the know', which is why, for lack of consensus, you are able to make life so difficult for other contributors trying to make an article resemble more reference than a single wikipedian's opinion. This is not a gang war, there is no 'sides', and there is no 'property' - it is the integrity of the written word that has the final say, and that's it. Work to this end and you'll have no reason for conflict with anyone. THEPROMENADER 00:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC) reply

I would appreciate if Promenader wouldn't delete each and every of my contributions. This has been reported to several admins anyway, who will no doubt keep an eye on this.

...Wait a second. By the above, are you insinuating that you complained to editors that it is I who follows you about reverting your edits? Nothing could be farther than the truth; in fact, just the opposite is true! The typical Hardouin scenario, at least in my time on wiki:

• A contributor has the malchance to edit/correct an article that Hardouin has written/extensively edited.
• In no time at all, Hardouin is there to inspect the additions/alterations, and reverts or overwrites them if they are not to his taste, and this, in many cases, without leaving any talk page message at all.
• Should the reverted contributor be angry and see the revert as needless, and revert back, Hardouin will engage in a revert-war until he gets the 'last revert', and this well beyond the WP:3RR is broken - and since he is always the first to revert, he is always first to cross the line.
• Should through all the above, the reverted contributor leave talk page messages pointing out the needlessness of the reverts and/or proving the original text as being false, Hardouin will begin replying with only arguments supporting his "own" reverted-to version and completely ignoring arguments motivating change.
• Should the revert-war end with Hardouin having the last revert, he will end all talk-page discussion until someone once again tries to edit the article, and the above scenario will repeat itself.

Anyone can verify this, especially in the Paris article page history.

... the 'municipal dance' was a break from this in its onset, but it later followed the same cycle. Your first edits, made under the label "corrected some longstanding errors" (it was obvious with through earlier mentions in other discussion that you were obsessed with this section) was not at all to correct any errors but add quite inventive text of your own - a text not reverted, but refuted in the Paris talk page. It was only after weeks of your ignoring all suggestions and arguments that I made corrections and language improvements - but your original contribution remained largely intact. You cancelled many of these but two hours after by the re-insertion of your own former text (marked as a "minor edit" in the bargain) - with the addition of yet another misleading phrase - and after even more talkpage banter/ignoring, the circle began once again.

This is of course without mention of other tactics such as false and denigrating complaints to other contributors, 'turnaround' accusations, gaming the system (such as in the latest WP:3RR debacle) and last but not least, sock-puppetry.

All of the above behaviour speaks of something other than than article informative value/accuracy, but whatever it is, this is of no concern to me. Making misleading complaints to administrators, on the other hand, is something else entirely. I invite anyone concerned to take this up with me directly.

Hardouin, you've managed to make contributing to Wiki a quite unpleasant experience: if you really have an accusation to make, I suggest you open a WP:RFC against me so we can see through fact where your complaint lies. If all you have is insinuations, I suggest that you not waste any more of anyone's time.

Regards, THEPROMENADER 08:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC) reply