Talk:Paris/archive 13

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Resolution 2 Semiprotect the page 3 Hidden TOC 4 Climate Data 5 Global City 6 References 7 Errors in template 8 Metro Population? 9 Bois de Boulogne and Bois de Vincennes 10 Paris Hilton More Famous 11 High-schools, universities and grandes écoles, but what about prépa? 12 Inconsistent Use of Paris' and Paris's 13 IHT blog 14 English vs. American English 15 Merge from List of visitor attractions in Paris 16 Minor issue 17 Wholesale revert by Thum Fel (talk)

Resolution

"enough on this already" is a funny way to talk about a subject on a democratic, open basis , but any way... i agree with you, but i notice that you keep on ignoring my suggestion (to the point that it looks you are doing it on purpose): go look at the price waterhouse coopers study. that study compares the big cities , using U.N. Figures (the same you seem to apreciate, just like me), on the only real basis that counts (i agree with you too): the whole city, not just the city center is relevant to talk about the very important cities in this world.

it clearly says paris has the biggest population in the EU, and the biggest gdp. why not say it in the introduction. Beyond the schoolyard "who's got the biggest *** " debate you despise just like me , it is really worth pointing out, since years of disinformation have induced everybody in believing the opposite. it is a fact worth mentionning, and it is a UN figure, echoed by a north american study group (what can be nore neutral ?)

i would kindly add that your digression on the name game does not resist the most basic investigation. if we keep going in you logic, in order to talk about that 2.3 millon inhabitants , capital of France, we should say exactly "Ville de Paris" , the official name of this entity whose mayor is m. Delanoe. On the other hand, "Paris" allows to talk either about the ville de paris or greater paris. if you talk about the center of paris, you have to say Ville de Paris, and not just Paris. if you do so, you are misleading people.

now, if we are to compare "Ville de Paris" and "City of london", well the City is this tiny part of London, and it would be ridiculous to do so. The problem is, that's exactly what you are doing at the bigger scale. Leave London (alone) and Paris (alone), they both refer to the greater extensions of the city. cheers Esteban

---

Hello ! i just don't agree with the way wikipedia works, it's a clear anglo saxon propaganda on the english speaking pages. the cities ranking is a mess. first the population: on the london page, the people mention freely whatever extension they want. and for the paris page, we should limit ourselves to the administrative limits ? if you take a close look, you see that Paris has more population than London as far as the first 10 km around the city center is concerned. it's jsut more dense (case number 1) then, in the next urban layer (10-20 km) London is more dense. at this stage of the population count, London has more population (case 2) then at the third stage, that of the urban area (20-40 km) the two cities are just equal (case 3) it is no mystery why you guys decide to consider the case Number 2 for your population counts: you want london to look bigger than paris..

so if you were objective, you would say that both cities are equally big (ie 12 million people), and explain that due to the diference of configuration and the difference of techniques, the results wouldn't jkust mean anything scientifically. i challenge you to do that ! :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.83.21.72 (talk • contribs)

i would add that the TGV system makes the paris urban area bigger, since people who live in the area of Lille and Brussels(1.4 M + 1M) are just one hour from their office in Paris, and as they sleep i nLille or brussels (cheaper), they work in Paris. this is not the case of london, and the rapid transportation factor, makes paris even bigger. why don't you guys put a section on this interesting issues that mixes demography and transportation issues? Lyon and Strasbourg, 2 hours these TGV lines look like metro lines at peak hours, people are standing reading their paper , drinking ocfee and making calls.

as far as the GDP ranking is concerned, it is important to look athis document on global cities that is given as a link . if you are not london propagandists you have to admit the truth: Paris's GDP is superior to that of London, it's written balck on white, UN statistics. this document on global cities not only shows that paris has more people, but its GDP is bigger (funny to note that this document being english, there is no written comment on that reality that seems to hurt, it's like silenced, and the authors put a 2050 projection in which, of course, London tops paris !) ! Paris is number 5 (Tok, NY, LA, CHic) and not number 6 !

please put this info in the introduction. or if it hurts you, remove any information in the london page saying that "bla bla london is the number one here, the number one there, blabla"

what do you think about this objectivity proposal ?

The Editing Talk: Paris is such an an important part of the wikipedia process - I am riveted by the conversation engendered by the discussion of Paris Metropolitan area population - so much so that I've linked Editing Talk to parislogue.com. It seems like the wikipedia editing talk will go down in history - along the lines of Diderot. (Paris Loguer 02:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC))

in the absence of any reaction from you, i modified the page. let's debate, but as a parisian i think i ( and others) can shed some light on your estimations....too bad the London site is not that open to changes and foreign opinions. should we ask the same treatment for "our" city?

Hello! I see the point in your propositions, but unfortunately they lack definition. "Paris" is only a flexible entity with flexible borders to those who don't know it - as is every city for the same. Paris is a real entity with definable limits - and it is this that is compared to other major cities. We cannot take an ignorant 'interpretation' of 'what <city> should be or "may be"' and compare it to another... we must deal in precise definitions, as the goal of an encyclopedia is not to cater to ignorance. It is for that very reason and purpose that the government even, when speaking of the economy centred on Paris, speaks of the "Paris region" or "Île de France" when making precisions. That is exactly what this article does at present. THEPROMENADER 22:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

yes, but why is it something we have to accept without discussion about London (some jokers talk about a city that has 14 million inhabitants, can you tell me this is based on clear definitions ???) and not about paris ? the Lodon page is not subject to such doubts, why is it the case for paris i would add this is ridiculous, to let a city that is objectively bigger (UN figures in the price waterhouse coopers report) look smaller by putting fake figures (ile de france is 11.7 and not 9.93, go check it) or using the downtown paris figures (from 19th century). and on the other hand, letting people talk about london's commutter belt and its 14 million people, not letting us modify it

i feel free to talk about paris' commutter belt too !! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.83.21.72 (talk • contribs)

What 'They' are doing 'over there' is of no interest to this artcle - the goal of Wikipedia is to provide clear, factual information to its readers with as little nuance and 'interpretation' as possible. If 'others' would like to use a selective (and perhaps misused) vocabulary and selective statistics to make 'their' article subject seem as big as possible, that's their problem. I realise that this is is a trend in many 'city' articles, but it is not one with the goal of providing objective information; it is one more akin to little boys comparing their *** in schoolyards - but let us not digress.

London is an exception in the 'name game' (as mentioned many times before) because its "Greater London" is known both commonly and officially as "London". Paris unfortunately does not share this exception: go beyond Paris' administrative limits and you are no longer in "Paris". If you want to speak accurately of the growth centred on Paris, then you have to use an accurate term such as "Paris agglomeration" or "Paris urban area". The information here must comply with real, widespread and referenced usage.

In my opinion, the "border debate" is just pure silliness. A city should be defined not by its name or where its government decides to draw borders: it is its real growth as an agglomeration - and it is only on this criteria that there can ever be any reasonable comparison between cities. The UN is presently in the process of doing exactly that - drawing a world demographic map based on a common and unique definition of "agglomeration" (urban area).

This article has seen a prodigal amount of silliness because of this impossible debate. London city can officially say that all its suburban buroughs and counties are its own under its own namesake - no matter how populated (or not) they are - and because Paris cannot do the same, one contributor tried to 'translate' a little known (to the French) statistic that includes not only the urban growth, but its (very!) sparse (local definition of a) commuter belt into an area called "the Paris Metropolitan area" that was (in his opinion) simply "Paris" - a wrangling of fact only the conributor's own, as no reference in existence does this. Now how can one ever expect to engage in a real debate on terms such as those? It is for that both articles were subject to an ongoing (not-so-) anon editing war.

Conclusion: if you want to speak in a clear language about a city's 'real size', use the internationally-acclaimed and accepted "urban area". To state:"The Paris urban area is larger than the London urban area" is a clear fact understandable to all. To say "London is bigger than Paris" is both vague and misleading, as the definition of each term being compared differs with the knowledge and opinion of those debating, and even these are based on administrative lines having little to do with any real demographical growth. So enough on this already!

Thanks for the debate : ) BTW, best to sign your comments.

Cheers! THEPROMENADER 09:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

---

Original version - quite a cut! Please let's revise this. THEPROMENADER 23:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Paris is the capital city of France. It is situated on the River Seine, in northern France, at the heart of the Île-de-France region ("Région parisienne"). The city of Paris has an estimated population of 2,153,600 within city limit (2005 est.).^[1] The Paris urban area has a population of 9.93 million ^[2] and a commuter belt around the same completes the Paris "aire urbaine" (roughly: "metropolitan area") that, with its population of 11.5 million,^[3] is one of the most populated areas of its kind in Europe.^[4]

Paris' location at a crossroads between land and river trade routes in lands of abundant agriculture had made it one of France's principal cities by the 10th century, rich with royal palaces, wealthy abbeys and a cathedral; by the 12th century Paris had become one of Europe's foremost centres of learning and the arts. Today, Paris is a major influence in politics, fashion, business, arts and science. The city serves as an important hub of intercontinental transportation and is home to universities, sport events, opera companies and museums of international renown,^[5][6] making it an attraction for over 30 million foreign visitors per year.^[7]

The Paris region (Île-de-France) is France's foremost centre of economic activity. With €478.7 billion (US$595.3 billion), it produced more than a quarter of the gross domestic product (GDP) of France in 2005. With La Défense, the largest purpose-built business district in Europe, it hosts the head offices of almost half of the major French companies, as well as the headquarters of ten of the world's 100 largest companies.^[8] Paris also hosts many international organizations such as UNESCO, the OECD, the ICC, or the informal Paris Club. It is regarded as one of the world's 4 major global cities.^[9]

Semiprotect the page

Due to increased ip vandalism, I have made a request to semi-protect this page. STTW (talk) 15:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Good move. This page should be in the top half of the "Wiki's most vandalised articles" list. Thanks should go to users such as Atlant for always keeping an eye open... thanks! THEPROMENADER 12:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

You know, after months of contribution to this page, I made a point of leaving it to let others have a go at it. Almost all that's changed since is a quite regular many-times-daily vandalism. Is there any reasonable means to counter this? THEPROMENADER 22:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

You could try requesting semi-protection again at WP:RFPP. I'm not an administrator, but after a cursory look at the page history, there's probably enough vandalism to justify it. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Hidden TOC

Instead of revert-warring over this, how about a bit of discussion?

I can very well see reason for a hidden TOC, and this is nothing to do with nonexistent 'Wiki standards'. Yet I don't like the idea of having no TOC at all, either. Would it be possible to make a 'reduced TOC' having the 'main subtopics' ( '==Whatever==') only?

I'm divided on this - but would prefer to have a hidden TOC rather than an overly-long one, at least until a better solution is found. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 17:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I have reinstated the hidden TOC until a better solution is found - please continue discussion here. I will be alerting concerned parties about this. THEPROMENADER 01:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

There's been quite a bit of support for the TOChidden on a number of articles. Editors find that the massive amount of blank space in the lead is distracting and not very esthetically pleasing. People are used to using such a user interface across the web as far as "hidden" content is concerned so I don't really see a problem having the TOC be one click away (no utility is lost at all whatsoever). (→Netscott) 01:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I've seen that support, and see sense in it - and do find the present TOC system to be rather half-assed in the bargain. I also see that the 'hidden' TOC is still visible to people using non-javascript non-graphic browsers. But what of making a 'first-level heading only' TOC? This could be even more useful IMHO. Can we look into this, perhaps somewhere else? THEPROMENADER 01:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Climate Data

I am new here, and I am not sure I am writing at the right place. But anyway, I have been surprised by the climate data about Paris that seem pretty inaccurate, especially for the winter temperatures. I suggest to replace it with informations from http://www.worldweather.org/062/c00194.htm, like the one used at the page about London, which seem a lot more accurate and precise. Thank you, and sorry for disturbance.User:Biskui 18:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

This section was subject to a lot of vandalism (people changing numbers) so most probably needs some cleaning up. Thanks for the link. What disturbance? You're just as at home here as anywhere in Wikipedia : ) THEPROMENADER 07:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Global City

"It is regarded as one of the world's 4 major global cities." is inaccurate. Paris was listed in the top 4 of 10 "alpha global cities" by the GaWC in 1999. Furthermore, even if the GaWC had the authority to designate the global city, the GaWC has since introduced a completely different categorization system that negates its prior rankings. Neitherday 21:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I don't at all see how the entire passage was "inaccurate" enough to merit a complete removal. Before we even get to discussing the intricacies fo the GAWC (that still have, for all matters, Paris listed and discussed as one of the world's most dominant World Cities), even the most uninformed of readers will probably know that Paris is one of the world's major "global cities".

If it is the GAWC's definition (now that I look, listed but as a citation without additional context, yet still actual - GaWC has yet to replace this list) you don't like, or you think that "one of the world's 4 major global cities" (as if it only has four) it too precise, then it would have been a better idea to edit it ("one of the world's major global cities"?) rather than remove it outright. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 07:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

References

Errors in template

The article says: "French Land Register data, which excludes lakes, ponds, glaciers > 1 km² (0.386 sq mi or 247 acres) and river estuaries.". The sign ">" means "larger than". So this means that the land register data excludes big lakes. This is not very likely. It is more likely that they exclude small lakes. --Ysangkok 16:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

That's actually pretty funny : ) Consider it fixed. Thanks! THEPROMENADER 18:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, we both are wrong - land register data does discount lakes and glaciers larger than a certain size - for the simple reason that neither are land. Luckily someone saw this error and set it straight. THEPROMENADER 07:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Metro Population?

I have noticed that the Metro population is higher than the estimated population. I wasn't quite sure whether the Metro population was the amount of people who lived in the Metro area, or how many people used it. This may just be a mistake on my count, but the fact that the Metro population is 6 times larger than the estimated population confused me. Can anyone explain this to me? XP105 08:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The "Paris metropolitan area" (a very unofficial term here) is of course much larger than the city of Paris - it stretches well beyond Paris' adminitrative limits (only anything within is called 'Paris' here), well beyond its urban area of natural growth (covering an area roughly eight times Paris) and covers a vast sparsely-inhabited commuter belt (aire urbaine) covering an area almost the size of the Île-de-France région that itself is over eighty times larger than Paris. Hope that explains things. THEPROMENADER 05:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

On the matter of population density, I think it's a bit presumptious to say that Paris has the highest density in the Western world. (Especially since there is no source for this) Manhattan's population density is 66,940 people per square mile (25,846/km²). This is clearly higher than Paris. Freddyzdead 12:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Paris' population density is 24,783/km² so not so much lower than Manhattan's (which is only part of The city of New York). Some copy editing needs to be done so that Paris can at least reassert itself as a 'good article

Bois de Boulogne and Bois de Vincennes

I see no reason for the exclusion of the land area of the Bois de Boulogne and the Bois de Vincennes from that of Paris in the factbox's city statistics. They are part of the commune, which has a total area of 105.4 km². Are we to arbitrarily exclude legal parts from other communes also? Backspace 08:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Isn't the "with and without 'les bois'" information part of the footnote of the aforementioned factbox? Its authors (myself included) did find the "inhabited space" info more relevent... but of course a modification should/could be made. THEPROMENADER 12:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Paris Hilton More Famous

With her recent jail sentence Paris Hilton has become more famous than the city of Paris, France. I propose that people searching wikipedia for "Paris" should be sent to Paris Hilton's page instead of this one. Who's with me? Ogeez 19:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Funny :) Paris probably has only two more years in the spotlight then she's history. Sort of a "where is she now" episode 10 years from now.

High-schools, universities and grandes écoles, but what about prépa?

I think this article lacks a -small but important- section on prépas (in Education). (Randomblue)

Then by all means, please add something about it - ! THEPROMENADER 09:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Started the editing (will improve later). Please help me with the English and wikifying as I'm not a native English speaker and this is one of my first edits. (Randomblue) it doesn't only americans care about their stupids celebrities, who in Africa, Asian or South America knows about Paris Hilton. Americans thinks everythings evolve around them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.96.86.4 (talk) 23:47, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Inconsistent Use of Paris' and Paris's

I've noticed on this article that Paris' and Paris's is inconsistently being used, and I'm rather bothered by it. I have had discussions on which form to use (Paris' or Paris's) with another editor and We have not agreed. I think if anything the form NEEDS TO BE CONSISTENT. Use one form (Paris' or Paris's) and stick with that. To not do so is sloppy.

Now I vote that Paris's be use as according to The Elements of Style by Strunk and White the proper usage for possesive nouns that end in s is 's (i.e. Charles's) with exception of ancient possessive nouns that end in es or is which should use the apostrophe only, such as Isis' or Moses'. Paris is an old city, but it is not ancient, so it does not quaify for this exception, therefore it's proper usage would be Paris's. Here is a link to passage from The Elements of Style by Strunk and White and here's a quote

Form the possessive singular of nouns with 's.
Follow this rule whatever the final consonant. Thus write,

Charles's friend
Burns's poems
the witch's malice

This is the usage of the United States Government Printing Office and of the Oxford University Press.
Exceptions are the possessives of ancient proper names in -es and -is, the possessive Jesus', and such forms as for conscience' sake, for righteousness' sake. But such forms as Achilles' heel, Moses' laws, Isis' temple are commonly replaced by

the heel of Achilles
the laws of Moses
the temple of Isis

The pronominal possessives hers, its, theirs, yours, and oneself have no apostrophe.

I think I've made the arguement for Paris's rather well. Can we please have a consensus?

Thanks!

AngielaJ 15:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

(Grin) I'll go with whatever's dominant (in this article) for the time being - to be fair. Both Paris' and Paris's are common usage, and Angielaj, you have presented proof to but a single point of view (yours). I have provided a few links to other usages through someone else's attempt to reason through the subject in a balanced manner - links that you can find here.

If "Paris's" is already an inconsistant dominant in an article, by all means go ahead and change the rest to that - or vice versa - unless a very narrow tie, you don't need to seek consensus for that. THEPROMENADER 18:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I have a long-standing "thing" about misuse of apostrophes, and "Paris's" just looks wrong. I was always taught that essentially any word ending in "s" should be possessified (!) by just appending an apostrophe. I have no idea how authoritative 'The Elements of Style by Strunk and White' is, but I'd like to see more corroboration from other sources before I'd consider accepting Paris's over Paris'. Freddyzdead 07:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

IHT blog

Here are two links relating to Paris travel, written by IHT reporters living in Paris.

http://blogs.iht.com/tribtalk/travel/globespotters/?cat=4

http://blogs.iht.com/tribtalk/travel/globespotters/?p=2 Chrisvnicholson 14:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

English vs. American English

It doesn't make sense to spell the word center as "centre". Although this is the way it is spelled in France, this article is written in English. Therefore, the language in which you're communicating dictates the spelling of the word. In other words, if America was being written about in French, it would be spelled as "centre". So, to keep it consistent, when writing about France in English, we would use "center". You cannot use "centre" when writing in French and English. That's not consistent. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.192.176.30 (talk) 02:37, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

Centre is BrE, center is AmE. The article should be consistent, either BrE all along or AmE. Squash Racket 09:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

This article is written in British English - most European articles are written in BrE (as their contributors are often European), as American English is common more to the U.S. than anywhere else. If there is any inconsistency, it should be corrected for sure. THEPROMENADER 09:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a typically Amerocentric comment, where it is seen as "just wrong" to use "centre" or to put a "u" in colour. If Wikipedia is deemed to be an American-only enterprise, then one supposes that American English (AmE) should be used throughout. If it's actually an international effort, then it would be more appropriate to use the spellings that are common in the majority of English-speaking countries. In any case, Americans should "get over it". And put the missing "i" back in "Aluminium" while they're at it. Freddyzdead 07:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

True that the original comment was misguided (not to mention ignorant - "centre" is also U.K. English), but no need for the vitriol. The general trend for Wikipedia seems to be using the form of English "closest to" the article subject - for example: American for American subjects, Canadian English for Canadian subjects, and English for things more European - but all that depends on the consensus created by the article contributors. It is of course essential that a single article be consistant in its use of one language. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 19:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge from List of visitor attractions in Paris

Very old merge tag on List of visitor attractions in Paris that doesn't appear to have been discussed here (yes, I looked through lots of old talk pages). No opinion on the merge itself, but if it is not done then the list article needs to be cleaned up and criteria for inclusion created. A rename might be in order also, converting it from a straight list to a prose-style article. Pairadox 17:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

No, that list has never been discussed here, but I'm sure you found lots of quabbling on other matters : )

The problem is that this article is already too long as it is - we need to remove content, not add it. What would you think about transforming the List of visitor attractions in Paris into a Visitor attractions in Paris article - not only would it be more informative, but this way we can move much of the detail about "visitor attractions" from here to there - or at least refer that section to the new article. Possible? THEPROMENADER 10:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with ThePromenader, it has been listed as needing to be merged since October. Something needs to be done Paulytlws 09:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

If you don't mind, I'll see what I can do to transform the List of visitor attractions in Paris into a real article, then see about moving some of the content from here to there. I hope this pleases everyone. THEPROMENADER 23:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that works very well, and have no doubt the Paris-related articles would benefit from it. If you haven't already, you should read Wikipedia:Summary style for some pointers on how to relate the two. Pairadox 23:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

If you don't mind, I'm removing the "merge" tag from the top of the article. I will have a look at the List of visitor attractions in Paris article and see what I can do; I do have one worry though: that the resulting article will resemble Paris districts - but perhaps not. I will pursue discussion about this on the relevent talk page. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 18:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I came across "list of attractions" just today for the first time... then followed the merge proposal over to here. I volunteer to help with ThePromender's proposal. Shall we start a discussion over at that talk page? We should be able to come up with a plan and perhaps divide the work. Hult041956 23:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, let's take it over there. Thanks for your interest and help! THEPROMENADER 06:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Minor issue

In the "Partner Cities" section Montreal is represented by the flag of Quebec, a province of Canada, while all the other partner cities are denoted by national flags.

Any particular reason? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.112.200.188 (talk) 18:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Good question. I have changed the flag to the Canadian one. Green Giant 23:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Same for Quebec City. done. Mariokempes 04:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Wholesale revert by Thum Fel (talk)

This user seems to be on a one-(wo)man mission to change the Paris article to his/her preferences. On October 4th and 5th, there were eighteen edits made to this article after Thum Fel had made this edit. Then on October 6th, Thum Fel carried out a blind revert, undoing eighteen edits and restoring various spelling mistakes, unnecessary reference-fields, and in particular several images which had replaced perfectly valid earlier images. How do I know this was a blind revert? Compare the two revisions and you will see there is absolutely no difference between them. Normally, I would never object to useful edits made by anyone but all of these edits were made without Thum Fel making a single comment on any talk page or offering even one edit summary. This is despite messages on his/her talkpage explaining how to use edit summaries and asking him/her to utilize the talkpage here. My reason for highlighting this is to ensure nobody misinterprets my action in this edit which basically undid the blind revert. Green Giant 20:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record - blind revert number 2 took place here at 21:51, October 7, 2007. The obvious point is that it seems to be an act of vandalism because Thum Fel is simply ignoring the requests on his/her talkpage. Green Giant 22:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately the vandalism of this guy is not limited to the Paris article. Check his/her contributions, you'll see he/she's also botched the Monaco, Nice, Sao Paulo, Barcelona, and couple other articles. This should be notified to the admins some way or another. Keizuko 23:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Thum Fel has been reported now. We'll have to wait to wait for an admin now. Green Giant 23:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok dokie. Keizuko 23:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I was at first glad to finally see some "new blood" editing the article, but in my morning checks over the past few days, the oddness has been accumulatingly apparent. Whoever it is is a seasoned Wikipedian - and one wily enough to try to "hide" a blind revert in spreading it through several submissions. Thanks Green Giant for making this all clear for everyone. THEPROMENADER 07:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)