Josefu

Welcome!

Hello, Josefu, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, you can post to the help desk or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Rl 06:23, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I see you already found my talk page and signed your comment. Excellent. In most cases, it's fine to just go ahead and make changes (many here often recommend that you be bold in updating pages). In some cases it is a good idea to explain changes (on article talk pages) if they are not obvious (e.g. if you fix a popular misconception). Warning of changes is only necessary if an article is a field of POV warriors (usually you will find a note at the top of such articles). ... Either way, you will probably find that every now and then, someone will revert your change because they disagree or don't understand it. That's when negotiations on a talk page are helpful. Rl 16:23, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Entendu : )

I do have to say that I am a bit confused whether to answer you here or "chez vous" but thanks for the very helpful tips. Take care.

Everybody is confused about that. Different people do it differently. I have yet to see a good solution. You'll get used to it :-). Good luck. Rl 17:42, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Amusement parks

I strongly disagree with your removal of leisure/amusement park information from the Paris article. (I understand you're new at Wikipedia.) Whatever you think of the interest of these parks, or that they're unrelated to Paris as a historical city, they are there and attract crowds. The Disney park was one of the motivations for installing TGV lines, etc., so it has an importance wrt the local infrastructure.

Remember, Wikipedia is not Britannica or similar. We do not have the same size constraints, we can afford to mention many more things. David.Monniaux 10:28, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I'll second that. I'm afraid you went overboard with your removals, Josefu. For external links, the rule of thumbs is "if in doubt, remove". For internal links (e.g. Le Lido), most editors are much more inclined to keep links if there is a chance that they may be interesting to readers. What the encyclopedia cannot offer is up-to-date information on cheap hotels or current exhibitions, and it should not be a link directory to external sites. Information on well-known tourist attractions (especially those famous enough to have articles of their own) are not a problem (i.e. a link to Disneyland Park (Paris) is fine in the Paris article, but any external links would have to go the the park article, not Paris itself). It's a grey area at times, and not all experienced editors agree on everything. So add "removing content" to the list of things on which you may want to build consensus on talk pages first. Rl 10:54, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

First, your assertion that Wikipedia has kindly set up another "WikiTravel" page for anything tourism is false. WikiTravel is not run by the Wikimedia Foundation, and is in fact, if I remember well, under a license incompatible with Wikipedia's. Actually, copying information there blindly may constitute copyright infringement.

Second, you are currently enforcing a change of policy regarding pages, without attempt to build consensus. This is fundamentally against the normal operation of Wikipedia. David.Monniaux 10:57, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

My personal feelings:

• We should keep internal links to major attractions, even though they are not "cultural".
• We should remove all cruft leading to directories of hotels and other similar stuff.

Generally speaking, we should trim external links. David.Monniaux 11:22, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, although I can't see him "enforcing" anything. I encouraged him to be bold (see my comments above), and he was (but misjudged consensus). Many newbies do that. – Don't let that discourage you, Josefu. You'll get the hang of it. Rl 11:57, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

WikiTravel and...

As our own article on Wikitravel says, that site does use a license that is, strictly speaking, incompatible with ours. However, both are free licenses and it's not quite clear what big a deal that incompatibility is. Wikitravel is not part of Wikimedia, the organization that oversees Wikipedia. – Don't confuse that with copyright laws, though. Laws are made by countries, and no organization can make up their own.

As for the WakkaWiki site: Taking stuff from Wikipedia is perfectly legal (that's sort of the point of a free license). Ads are fine, too – it's their web page. However, they seem to lack licensing information (no explanation of GFDL) and attribution (no links back to us or to the authors of the page). Also, it's not nice using our bandwidth to provide live pages. Someone already made an entry for WakkaWiki here: Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks/Vwxyz#WakkaWiki.com. If you find more sites like that, you now know where to report them :-). Rl 19:56, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Paris Page

Hardouin,

You motivations are utterly transparent, so please stop aiming your reverts at "other details". I removed no "useful information", yet that is what you seem to think of the information you put there. I very clearly stated months ahead of time my reservations with the GDP "bigger than" information, and another quite clearly complained about it. If you find whatever I replaced it with to be erronous, fix it. You're free to, that's the whole point of Wiki. But don't revert your work exactly back to the way is was when you submitted it.

All this because I was amazed and actually quite angry yesterday to find that in fact, after looking through the page's history, that you are the authour of most of what's wrong with the page. I have spent two months making myself look like a total fool - in waiting a pleading for "any consensus" from all the page's contributors (of whose identity I was unaware) that I was afraid of offending - when in fact the very person I should be talking with is you. You even came with a threat of "massive reverting by (those unknown) others" when in fact, and proven today, the only reverter would be you. There is no nice word for that sort of misleading behaviour.

It's not that people don't care about "any changes" - I don't think anyone cares about this page. It contains little information interesting to anyone interested in Paris, so I doubt that people even find it when they use the search function.

If you see any "erronous information", fix it, and say why. The Capetian court moved from Orléans to Paris in 1112, and there is even another Wiki article (French) proving this. If you find it ambiguous, fix it. If you absolutely want Ile de France to be up top there, add it. But reverting is another matter. I gave you ample time to read and discuss my qualms with what you wrote, yet you preferred to hide.

I really don't know what to think about this or your behaviour until now; you seem to think you "own" the page because you submitted over 60% of it, yet you have done everthing to disguise this fact. I'd like all the same to grant you the same room for discussion I have been offering for three months now, and see if we can come to some sort of agreement. This page's quality must improve, and trifling personal feelings and "ownership" should have nothing to do with that.

Cordially,

Josefu 12:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

In addition, I've just noticed that you reverted the whole page - even the economy section. There is no excuse for this: readers have complained openly about that section. Unfortunately I seem to be the first to propose any extensive changes on Paris page so all this is falling on me. Tant pis. You know full well how I feel now.

I see that discussing this further between us will go nowhere. The only thing that I can suggest to you is that you contact User:Olivier and User:David.Monniaux, and show them your sandbox with the economy section that you wrote. Both these users are French and made good and numerous contributions to Wikipedia over the years. Ask them what they think of your economy section, and whether or not they believe that talking about the whole metropolitan area is a misrepresentation, which is basically what you are accusing me of. I have already asked David Monniaux for comments, but he's probably too busy and hasn't answered me yet. Hardouin 22:00, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

The whole point is that we've discussed nothing yet. Please see your Talk Page. ThePromenader 12:12, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Portal:Paris

Portal:Paris, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Paris and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Portal:Paris during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 07:21, 6 September 2019 (UTC)