User talk:Olivier/Archives 2010

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Olivier! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 3 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 2 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

Julien Lepers - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Lam Ka-Tung - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Deng Nan - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 23:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Christianism

I have nominated Christianism, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christianism. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Fauna Gland Rocker (talk) 18:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Omar Shariff

I have nominated Omar Shariff, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Omar Shariff. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of List of Chinese people notable in the West

I have nominated List of Chinese people notable in the West, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Chinese people notable in the West. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Kayau Don't be too CNN I'LL DO MY JOB uprising! uprising! 09:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Back in 2002, I created an article with the intro paragraph reading "[list of] Famous Chinese or Chinese-speaking/writing people:". That was at a time when Wikipedia had about 10,000 articles and there were no categories. Such lists were common and made sense at the time. They also served the secondary purpose of listing articles to be created. Over time, the article changed focus and title and became "List of Chinese people notable in the West" and was edited 1,273 (!) times. Obviously the initial purpose of the article has been replaced by categories and such a potentially broad list became useless as Wikipedia grew. So, I have no problem with the deletion. I am even surprised that the article survived such a long time. olivier (talk) 07:04, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributed article, Cho Tat-wah

Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, Cho Tat-wah. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as yourself. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - Cho Tat Wah. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will to continue helping improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Cho Tat Wah - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. _LDS (talk) 05:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Champmol

As an administrator (??!), you should be aware of the proper procedures for moving pages. Please revert this undiscussed move, which you did not even trouble to give an edit summary to! Johnbod (talk) 10:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not all moves are controversial. This one seems obvious to me. Why should the article be at "Champmol" while the bolded title within the article (which, by the way was misspelled) is "Chartreuse de Champmol". You can refer to Help:Moving a page. Bullet point #2 states in reasons for moving: "The title does not follow Wikipedia's naming conventions, such as that it is not the common name of the subject or it is overprecise". "Chartreuse de Champmol" IS the common name of the subject. It seems that a title name other than this should be discussed.olivier (talk) 16:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. The move is indeed controversial, and references in English to the monastery are usually just to "Champmol" as here. There are also the English alternatives of "Champmol Charterhouse" or "Charterhouse of Champmol" as here. Johnbod (talk) 18:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merci!

Guirlande de Julie

Olivier,

Nos chemins s'entrecroisent à travers la "guirlande de Julie", raison de ce bonjour que je vous adresse.

Je suis assez perplexe sur les chiffres donnés pour les madrigaux publiés dans le manuscrit d'origine: "quarante-et-un" et "soixante-et-un" ou "soixante-deux". G. Lenotre, dans Le Château Rambouillet, six siècles d'histoire, affirme "soixante-et-un dont cinq sont de Montausiier", alors qu'Irène Frain, dans sa Guirlande de Julie publié en 1991 par Laffont, en collaboration avec la Bibliothèque nationale, et qui a eu le manuscrit original entre les mains, en donne quarante-et-un. Devons-nous en déduire que certaines éditions qui suivirent ont inclus des madrigaux qui ne paraissaient pas dans l'édition originale?

Cordialement, --Frania W. (talk) 14:17, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merci pour ce message. Ravi de faire votre connaissance. Les sujets sur lesquels vous travaillez me paraissent en effet tres interessants, et vos contributions sont de valeur.

Je suis arrive sur la Guirlande de Julie par hasard, en partant d'Esprit Fléchier qui m'a amene a Charles de Sainte-Maure, duc de Montausier. Si j'ai tente de contribuer de facon logique, je ne suis pas du tout un specialiste du sujet, meme si je le trouve passionant. Au passage, j'ai trouve l'article de Jules Tellier [1] excellent et d'un humour que je ne connaissais pas pour cette epoque.

Le titre de l'ouvrage que vous avez ajoute en reference La Guirlande de Julie, augmentée de pièces nouvelles semblerait indiquer que des madrigaux ont ete ajoutes par la suite, mais cela n'est pas certain. Les "pieces nouvelles" pouvant etre preface, commentaires, etc.

Je viens de m'apercevoir qu'il y a au moins 2 ouvrages [2] [3] donnant le texte complet sur Google Books. Peut etre pourrait-on y trouver une reponse, notamment dans l'introduction de ces ouvrages. Je vais aller chercher de ce cote.

Je vois aussi un "A LA SUPPLÉMENT GUIRLANDE DE JULIE MADRIGAUX INÉDITS COMPOSÉS POtJR LA GUIRLANDE Et qui ne figurent pas dans le manuscrit original" p.426 qui me semble etre une piste interessante !

olivier (talk) 15:36, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re bonjour: Je pense qu'en attendant de trouver la réponse quant au nombre exact de madrigaux dans l'édition originale, celle de 1641, il serait bon d'indiquer, soit dans le texte-même, soit en note de bas de page, que ce chiffre varie suivant les auteurs. Personnellement, et jusqu'à preuve du contraire, je fais plutôt confiance à Irène Frain qui a eu l'original entre les mains et dont le livre a été publié avec la bénédiction de la Bibliothèque nationale, alors que G. Lenotre n'a sans doute jamais vu l'original.

RE le jugement de Jules Tellier sur Montausier, il n'y va pas de main morte mais, d'après ce que je connais du personnage, c'était un "pète-sec" qui en a fait baver au dauphin qu'il a élevé à la dure.

Bonne continuation, --Frania W. (talk) 17:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tout a fait d'accord avec vous pour indiquer ces differents chiffres dans l'article. olivier (talk) 17:27, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

D'accord, l'un de nous le fera, à votre choix. --Frania W. (talk) 17:32, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Esprit Fléchier:

"He left a portrait or caracure of himself, addressed to one of his friends."

Was ist a "caracure" ? FW

Re: Guirlande: je vous laisse volontiers ajouter la precision, si cela ne vous derange pas.

Re: Fléchier: Merci pour la remarque qui me pousse a corriger l'erreur. Je me posais moi-meme la question. Il s'agit d'une erreur de scan provenant de l'integration initiale de l'Encyclopædia Britannica, Eleventh Edition dans Wikipedia a partir de [4] (le site a ete modifie depuis). Je viens de lire une version plus fiable [5] et ai corrige l'erreur.

olivier (talk) 18:04, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guirlande: fait[6]

Fléchier: ai laissé des traces...[7]

Aurevoir! --Frania W. (talk) 21:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tres bien ! Le peu de donnees que Google Books me permet de lire du Recueil de la Commission des Arts ne me permet pas vraiment de comprendre le lien entre la reference et l'information donnee dans l'article. Mais je suppose que j'en apprendrais beaucoup plus si j'avais le livre complet. olivier (talk) 16:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Les détails sur Fléchier à l'abbaye Saint-Séverin sont dans les pages données en référence. à+ FW --Frania W. (talk) 03:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

L'ouvrage complet est disponible sur Gallica. J'ai donc remplace le lien Google Books par celui de Gallica dans votre note. olivier (talk) 04:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK! Peut-être nos chemins s'entrecroiseront-ils à nouveau. Un plaisir d'avoir fait votre connaissance. Bon été! --Frania W. (talk) 18:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

De meme ! olivier (talk) 17:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Warring States (novel)

The article Warring States (novel) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No coverage in RS

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Cameron Scott (talk) 13:43, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Olivier

Thanks for your work. I am glad to see it and I'm sure you help me.

--Bironet (talk) 19:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thanks, but are you thinking of any of my contributions in particular? olivier (talk) 19:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm talkin' about Gorges family and user Yopie. But actually I have to also thank you for all your work here! :) --Bironet (talk) 12:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK :-) olivier (talk) 14:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Dacia

Hi, I saw that you collaborated on articles related to Dacia and thought this could be of interest: WikiProject Dacia is looking for supporters, editors and collaborators for creating and better organizing information in articles related to Dacia and the history of Daco-Getae. If interested, PLEASE provide your support on the proposal page. Thanks!!--Codrinb (talk) 06:16, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indef IP block

Hi there - Just so you know, I changed your indefinite block of 218.188.3.124 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) to 1 year per Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses stating that IP addresses should almost never be indefinitely blocked. I realize they have already been blocked for a year but there is no exception for even repeated long term vandalism. Thanks, VegaDark (talk) 09:08, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fine. Thank you for letting me know. The problems with this IP address have lasted since 5 years, so it is fairly safe to assume that the problems will resume in 1 year. olivier (talk) 09:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]