User talk:Olivier/Archives 2015

Join

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Democrat Socialists' Movement a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut-and-paste-move repair holding pen. Thank you. PanchoS (talk) 19:07, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like you are posting this on the wrong user page: I have not worked on the article or topic that you are mentioning. What I had done is: I have created in 2004 a redirect from Movement of Democratic Socialists to Movement of Socialist Democrats. That was 10 years before User:4idaho did the cut and paste that you are mentioning, and at the same time broke the redirect that I had created and that you have not restored. Please have a look at the history. In addition, as an admin, I could have deleted the redirect that you want speedy deleted. If there is a consensus. Also: you have deleted a previous discussion that was on my talk page, when you added you own message: that was un-careful. Olivier (talk) 19:59, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tai Mo Shan

Hi! Just a note to say that, following a post at WT:CP, I've blanked Tai Mo Shan, which you created in 2003, and listed it at WP:CP. I should make clear that I have no knowledge of what our licence requirements were at that time (I wasn't around), so this may very well be a mistake on my part; the licence is, however, unsuitable under our current rules. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:38, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have posted a reply at WT:CP. Please let me know if there is something I can do to help. Olivier (talk) 01:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Raymond Wong (film presenter)

You have been involved in the article. I invite you to a move discussion. --George Ho (talk) 19:09, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cheung Po Tsai, Tanka

Just curisoy, are you the one who create Cheung Po Tsai wikipedia page and claim that Cheung Po Tsai is Tanka people? If yes, where do you get your source for this claim?ShanghaiWu (talk) 07:50, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I am the one who created the Cheung Po Tsai article in 2004. But if you look at what I wrote at that time [1], I did not mention anything about Cheung Po Tsai being Tanka. This part was added in March 2010 by User:Bloodmerchant, as you can see from here [2]. This user has not been active since 2013, so I can imagine that it will be difficult to have the answer from him/her. If you believe that the unsourced Tanka statement is incorrect, feel free to remove it. 08:01, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Romanian Football

Help improving Romanian Football : teams, players, seasons. Thanks.--Alexiulian25 (talk) 10:05, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Château du Ramstein

You renamed Château de Ramstein as Château du Ramstein as that is how it is titled in French Wikipedia. Quite so. But one must not assume that French Wikipedia is correct. I created the page in English Wikipedia as a translation from the French in 2007, but had trouble with whether it was du or de. The problem is that most official and reliable sources use de, e.g.

French Ministry of Culture database
Regional Environment Department in its direcorty of Sites Inscrits et Classés
Moselle-Tourisme [3]
The local tourist office in listing castles Les châteaux forts du Pays de Bitche
- and its tourist map
- walking leaflet
- as well as its whole page devoted to Ramstei in its description in French.
The regional newspaper, Le Républicain Lorrain, "Baerenthal et son Ramstein" (21 july 2013)
Guide Books, including page 305 in Petit Futé Metz
- , page 44 in Alsace: Le Rhin Supérieur – La Route des Vins – Sundgau

On the other hand, some sites use du icluding

The aforementioned tourist office(!), but only in its equivalent English page
The town hall of Baerenthal on châteaux forts

On balance, it would seem to me that de is the more likely. What do you think? Emeraude (talk) 13:33, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your detailed message. I checked your sources and I agree with you that, while both "de" and "du" can be found, the "de" version seems to be more common. Also, Géoportail mentions "Ruines de Ramstein", which is quite a strong additional point in favour of "de", I believe. As a side note, as you most probably know, the French Ministry of Culture database is unfortunately not 100% reliable for names. Bottom line: I have moved the article back to Château de Ramstein and made the corresponding changes in the article. If you don't mind, I believe that it would be useful for future users to add your comments on the talk page of the article. To make things simpler, you could just copy this conversation if you wish. Thanks again. Cheers! Olivier (talk) 21:12, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. You are, of course, right to say that the Ministry of Culture is not always in line with other sources, but in this case I thought the number of other reliable sources swayed it. Emeraude (talk) 11:04, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chief minister listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Chief minister. Since you had some involvement with the Chief minister redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Neve-selbert 02:35, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Olivier. Yes, I can confirm that the article Prime minister has had the word Minister uncapitalised since 2006—an opposite move, capitalising Prime minister as Prime Minister, was also defeated in the same year. Thanks. Neve-selbert 22:40, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake: my comment should read: "The page move of Chief Minister to Chief minister should be discussed first." Still the conclusion of the closing admin remains valid: the discussion should take place in the Wikipedia:Requested moves forum. Olivier (talk) 06:39, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]