User talk:Olivier/Archives 2013

Speedy deletion nomination of Kwun Yam Shrine

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Kwun Yam Shrine requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Mootros (talk) 11:13, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Tin Hau temples in Hong Kong

The article Tin Hau temples in Hong Kong has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This article is a link farm.

While all constructive 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mootros (talk) 11:17, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Kwun Yam Shrine

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Kwun Yam Shrine requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Mootros (talk) 11:41, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Catacomb of Callixtus may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:20, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request to take part in a survey

I am Piotr Konieczny, a fellow Wikipedian (User:Piotrus) and a researcher of Wikipedia (http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=gdV8_AEAAAAJ). I am currently (in collaboration with WMF) embarking on a project trying to understand why the most active Wikipedia contributors (such as yourself) may reduce their activity, or retire. We have a growing understanding of why an average editor may do so (see http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Former_Contributors_Survey_Results), but we have a very limited understanding of why the top editors would limit their contributions. Yet it is the top editors like yourself who contribute most of Wikiepdia's content, thus understanding this is of vital concern to Wikipedia's project future.

I am contacting you because you are among the top Wikipediana by number of edits, yet your editing activity shows a decline. I would very much appreciate if you would take a minute and answer the following four short questions. Please note this is not a mass email; I am contacting only few dozen of editors like yourself, and each response is extremely valuable. Your response will not be made public, and your privacy will be fully respected.

If you would like to help out in this project and take part in a very short survey, please send me a wikiemail, so that I can send you an email with the survey questions. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:56, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not interested, thank you. olivier (talk) 00:24, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you!

It was a pleasure to meet you, here's some virtual beer. Hope to see you active again, those links at Outline of Hong Kong need fixing... Cheers! _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:45, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. It was a pleasure for me too! olivier (talk) 14:02, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your indefinite semiprotection of International Commerce Centre

Please read carefully WP:PP##Semi-protection and reconsider your indefinite semiprotection. Thanks. 220.246.135.78 (talk) 14:47, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing this article to my attention. It is probably a good time remove the semiprotection and see what happens. I am removing it now. Olivier (talk) 18:26, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Just for future reference, I think your indefinite semi was done against policy/guidelines (quoting, bold mine):

administrators may apply temporary semi-protection on pages that are [...] Subject to edit-warring where all parties involved are unregistered or new editors (i.e., in cases in which full-protection would otherwise be applied). This does not apply when autoconfirmed users are involved. [Jerchel was an autoconfirmed user]
If semi-protection is to be tried, its first application should be for a short duration, a few days or a week.
At some point an administrator might determine that the semi-protection should be made indefinite. This is reserved for only the most vandalized articles
Pages that are indefinitely semi-protected must have been semi-protected previously. This shows that the problem is ongoing, and that temporary semi-protection does not have a lasting effect. [In fact, in my opinion indefinite semiprotection should never be applied, because they are often forgotten about]

220.246.135.78 (talk) 15:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Protection policy states: "Administrators may apply indefinite semi-protection to pages that are subject to heavy and persistent vandalism", and that was the case at that time. Your points 2, 3 and 4 come from Wikipedia:Rough guide to semi-protection, which is not a policy, and "administrators are at liberty to use their discretion" regarding the points made in the "rough guide". When I semi-protected the article, I suggested the contentious issue about the number of floors of the building to be settled on the talk page. That was essentially a wait-and-see approach, in the hope that a consensus would be found. It did not happen during the time of the protection, and it is probably a matter of time before the edit war resumes. I was open to considering the removal of the protection, and I did it when one person (you) made the request. Semi-protections can be forgotten about by the administrator who made them, but cannot be forgotten by users, since there is a logo indicating that the pages are semi-protected. In addition, they can be removed by any administrator and a request for unprotection can be posted here: Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Olivier (talk) 16:19, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was not vandalism, let alone heavy and persistent vandalism. It was content dispute/edit warring, as your protection comment is still there to remind us. WP:IAR is not a cop out for everything. I see you are one of those people who will never admit to making a mistake. That is your problem, so I'm going to leave it at that, happy to having refreshed your memory on protection policy (and guidelines). 220.246.135.78 (talk) 00:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]