User talk:Keizuko

WP:3RR or you will be blocked !

Your edits have been reverted by several editors. You haven´t discussed once on talk page. Beware of Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. Lear 21 00:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

London

Do you considered London to be the most populated city in the EU? If not then which do you consider to be? Somethingoranother 01:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

London is the most populated city in the EU within city limits, but this doesn't mean much as city limits vary from country to country, depending on the administrative law in place in the country. Before 1999 when Greater London was recreated, London just had 7,000 inhabitants within city limits (City of London). Would have it made sense to say that London was only a very small city? Of course not. Administrative limits are always artificial. In terms of urban area, London is the second most populated after Paris. In terms of metropolitan area, London is the most populated in the EU, although there are controversies as to the exact limits of the London metro area (is Reading inside or outside the metro area? is Brighton inside or outside? etc.). As you can see, different measures give different results, sometimes London is #1, sometimes #2. That's why I think it would be best to avoid giving any ranking, and not just in the London article. Check the Berlin article where Lear 21 (above) is waging a revert war to drop the mention of Berlin's urban area ranking. He prefers the article to say that Berlin is the 2nd most populated city in the EU, which is true within city limits, but of course not true at all when considering the whole urban or metropolitan area. This is only meant to mislead people. Anyone who knows a bit about geography knows that London and Paris are by very far the two largest cities in the European Union. If any trace of ranking was removed from these cities articles there would be no such controversies and revert wars. Keizuko 01:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down

Hey Keizuko,

You really need to calm down. I know you really disagree with Lear21 about some things but revert wars won't help your cause. I actually agree with you and think that the ranking concerning the population withing a city's populated urban area should be mentioned in the lead section of that city's article. So discuss this issue with Lear21 on the article's or on his talk page. Tell him that the fact that other cities' articles do not mention the population in the metropolitan region does not make this practice right.

Happy editing,

--Carabinieri 17:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smile

James, La gloria è a dio has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Reversion

You recently ignored an afd-debate that you didn't even care to take part in. The explanation you gave is not sufficient, few afd-debates finds every contributor agreeing. The actual debate saw many people discussing over a period of eight days, after which a moderator made a decision. That is usual course taken for afd-debates, and just because you don't agree with the outcome, that doesn't give you the right to simply revert the decision. Especially not such a short time after the debate. If every editor would behave in the same way, the whole idea of afd-debates would be pointless. Please contribute in a more constructive way in the future, and participate in debates that engages you instead of waiting them out and then ignoring them. JdeJ 03:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ile-de-France

Hi Keizuko. User:ThePromenader is back again leading his revert crusade. The Île-de-France article has been recently unlocked and only a few days later Promenader couldn't resist deleting a sentence about the metropolitan area of Paris ([1]), even though the sentence is backed by a source. He's also trying to rally people to support him (see User talk:ThePromenader#Other occupations?). It would be good if you could have a look at Talk:Île-de-France (region)#Here we go again. and give some input there. Thanks. Hardouin 12:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hardouin's only contributions these days is reverting, so look there for the crusade. Read the article talk page if you like, but this issue is closed. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 13:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Tallest Buildings new.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Tallest Buildings new.png. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 01:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Tfd defense needed

you need to defend this (Template:Largest_cities_of_the_European_Union) ASAP. I've done all I could as a disinterested observer, and will attempt to get the date reset per the tagging anomaly. But you and your helpers need to get into the Tfd to defend it. Cheers // FrankB 15:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promenader's new assault

Promenader is on the rampage again. This time he wants to delete the template showing communes in the metropolitan area of Paris. I don't know where this guy will stop to remove any notion of an agglomeration of Paris. He has single-handedly listed the template for deletion ([2]), completely disregarding the fact that several editors have contributed to this template and that he is the sole person asking for its deletion. He has written a message on the template's talk page which you can check here: Template talk:Paris Metropolitan Area#This Template is pointless.. Last but not least he has also single-handedly removed the template from the 20 arrondissements of Paris, because according to him these arrondissements have nothing to do with the suburban communes: [3], [4], [5], etc. Complete denial of a Greater Paris, and that just when an administrative "Grand Paris" is going to be created by French authorities next year! This guy really has a problem. Hardouin (talk) 16:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promenader has also created an entry at Templates for deletion: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 November 20#Template:Paris Metropolitan Area. You can vote there to keep or delete the template. Hardouin (talk) 17:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in Europe

Why do you restore your version? LUCPOL (talk) 15:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And why do you restore yours? You don't own the article. Read WP:OWN. Keizuko (talk) 19:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GDPPP nominal UK etc

Y'know Keizuko I'd swear those guys don't even understand what that PPP thingy is. Sheesh. Sarah777 (talk) 02:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

January 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on United Kingdom. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Gwernol 21:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your question! I have to admit I'm starting to lose interest in Wikipedia, yes. To be honest, I think the whole idea of an encyclopedia that anyone can edit is inherently wrong. It builds on the principle that people add facts they know, and that would be great. The truth is that very few experts participate, and that Wikipedia is more or less an infinite number of editing wars, mostly fueled by fanatic nationalists. I've seen this in article after article. I believe the best thing would be a Wikipedia where people could not edit articles if they don't satisfy some criteria relating to the subjects they are editing. I've come up against fanatic Russians who refuse to believe the USSR ever occupied any country, nationalist Finns who are convinced the Finns are the original people of most of Europe, xenophobic Englishmen who delete anything not glorifying their own country, endless heated disputes between Albanians, Serbs, Croats and Bosnians. You get the picture :) In very few of these debates have anyone involved had any actual in-depth knowledge, instead it's always about nationalists of all kinds pushing their own agendas. Wikipedia has become a gigantic discussion forum filled to the brink with nationalists, and that's bad news both for Wikipedia and for reasonable editors, such as yourself. I won't quit Wikipedia altogether, but I'll be much less active. Cheers JdeJ (talk) 13:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go again

The Île-de-France (région) article was fully protected due to the edit war waged by User:ThePromenader who wants to have the "Paris metropolitan area" removed from the article (see history of the article for more details), then last month it was unprotected to allow good faith editors to edit the article, and sure enough one month later ThePromenader has renewed his edit war and deleted the "Paris metropolitan area" from the lead of the article, by claiming that it was an "uninformative phrase" ([6]). We've been through all that already, I know it's really tiring, but as long as the guy is not banned from editing the Paris related articles, all we can do is check these articles and reinstate the information he keeps deleting. Please have a look. Alone I can't do much. Hardouin (talk) 15:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just what is your problem???

Jist why exactly do you have such a UK hating zeal to blatantly vandalise reference to the UK that even other editors undo your obvious vandalism. I checked your contributions history and now you're chasing after other editors to try to enforce your UK hating POV? Signsolid (talk) 15:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My problem is your jingoism. Drop your jingoism, stop nationalistic edits, and all will be fine. Keizuko (talk) 15:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My nationalistic edits? Why do you only remove British nationalistic edits then? I'm sure there are plenty of editors out there portraying their countries in a positive light. And what's wrong with my edits if they're factual? As long as my edits remain factual there's no reason why they should be removed. Of your contribution history at least 50% of your recent contributions over the past 2 months have been edits that removed positive references to the UK. Signsolid (talk) 15:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see now you're messaging just about anyone and everyone on Wikipedia who has any power to overturn an administrator's edit. I really don't know what is driving you so much to portray the UK so negitively. And it's not just that it's that you are removing factual information. Signsolid (talk) 17:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

War in Afghanistan (2001–present)

I do not in any way condone edit warring by anybody. I simply don't see anything wrong with the wording. To paraphrase, the article states that the US and UK initiated aerial bombing together, beginning the conflict. There's nothing wrong with saying this in the lead. Instead, your edit completely removed mention of the UK, which supported the US early on.

As for the problem with Royal Dutch Shell, the article on the company explicitly states that it is owned by both the Netherlands and the UK. The article also says that the company was the result of a merger between British and Dutch firms. The two countries are about as equal in that matter as can be. --Merovingian (T, C) 16:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

March 2008

Your contributions history shows that you have been aggressively cross-posting. Although the Arbitration Committee has ruled that "The occasional light use of cross-posting to talk pages is part of Wikipedia's common practice."¹, such cross-posting should adhere to specific guidelines. In the past, aggressively worded cross-posting has contributed towards an Arbitration Committee ruling of disruptive behavior that has resulted in blocks being issued. It is best not to game the system, and instead respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building, by ceasing to further crosspost, and instead allowing the process to reflect the opinions of editors that were already actively involved in the matter at hand. Two One Six Five Five ^τ_ʃ 17:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Historical powers 3RR warning

You have reverted more than 3 times to a previous version of the Historical powers article. Why have you not used the talk page at all? You account's history appears to be only used for reverting edits and used unconstructively. Signsolid (talk) 02:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]