User talk:RIK813

July 2023

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Marcel Lefebvre into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. Nobody (talk) 09:13, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Veverve. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Écône consecrations, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Veverve (talk) 20:36, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

yes I did RIK813 (talk) 12:14, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Marcel Lefebvre, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Veverve (talk) 20:39, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Écône consecrations. Veverve (talk) 15:39, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stop adding those WP:BLOGs and other unreliable sources to support your claim. Either source information with a reliable source or do not add information. Veverve (talk) 15:43, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Beccaynr (talk) 20:41, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 2023

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Poupette Kenza. Beccaynr (talk) 23:22, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Beccaynr -- I made an addition about Kenza's judicial monitoring as a mother, and you deleted it as "poorly sourced". OK, I accept that. So I added it again, this time citing three extremely serious press articles focused on this accusation and on her police custody, and on the new law that's coming to the French Parliament (the MP supporting the law says Kenza's case is one reason why their bill is a necessity). Unfortunately, you immediately deleted this new addition, literally within seconds, without having had the time to even look at the references. -- These are not methods that honor you. The reality is : may addition is NOT defamatory, and is is richly sourced. RIK813 (talk) 15:38, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Poupette Kenza. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Beccaynr (talk) 00:13, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Poupette Kenza

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 Poupette Kenza requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Poupette Kenza. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

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 "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 deleted 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, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Edwardx (talk) 00:16, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Edwardx --- You write "the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion". Also, you write "When a page has content substantially identical to that of a page deleted following a discussion, and the changes made to the content do not address the reasons why the material was previously deleted, that page may be deleted at any time." --- But let's look at the facts: the article in its first version was deleted at the end of April 2023. It was removed in particular bevcause of a lack of serious sources, and too concentrated over too short a time. The second version of the article (posted by me end of August) gives 20 serious, focused articles and references, of which a priori only three were in the first version. In any case, Poupette Kenza's career has been developing since April 2023, and a third of the content of the SECOND version wasn't in the FIRST version because it had not yet happened at that time. --- The reality is that the changes made to the content do address the reasons (lack of serious sources, lack of extension in time) why the article was previously deleted. Everything that was already there in 2023 gains 5 months of age in the second version, and is documented by much more serious sources (national newspapers, focused sources, analyses and not just mentions of miscellaneous facts). Then, everything that's happened in the last 5 months: the conviction, the departure from France, etc. Look at the deleted article (second version), it's obvious. RIK813 (talk) 15:27, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Deb. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you.

You appear to have a close connection to the subject on Wikipedia that raises concerns about a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged.

Anyone with a conflict of interest must avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing articles related to you, your family or colleagues, your organization or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with,
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors,
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);
and you must always:
avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

Note that you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. Even if you are not being paid, you are expected to disclose any close connection with the subject of the article, using the connected contributor template.

For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest. Thank you.

Deb (talk) 06:25, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Deb. --- You write "You seem to have a close connection with the subject on Wikipedia". That's your free opinion and nothing supports it. In reality, the facts are factual, and documented by the 20 or so articles I indicated in the article on Poupette Kenza. All these articles are focused on her and come from the most serious sources: Le Monde, Le Parisien, Le Figaro, France Inter, etc. Those are redacted articles, analyses of Poupette Kenza, not a rehash of various mundanities: Check via the wikipedia article you deleted. --- Further on in your text you mention that I could enven have a link via "[my] employer, client, and affiliation", or even without being paid, but that in any case I would be there to promote this person. On the other hand, a little higher up it's Beccaynr (23:22, 11 September 2023) who accuses me of posting "defamatory or otherwise controversial content". Your two suggestions contradict each other. RIK813 (talk) 15:05, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think Deb's message is inconsistent with my warning, because social media influencers can capitalize on reports of controversy. I am involved with the article; I participated in the previous AfD, and edited this recreated article, including to repeatedly remove the graphic description of alleged child pornography that you repeatedly added to the article. I think your edit-warring to restore this content (after being alerted to the contentious topic area), which included content based on sources published several months apart to suggest one controversial event happening at one time [1], is a pattern of disruptive editing that warrants consideration of a sanction to prevent further disruption. Beccaynr (talk) 15:53, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, there's no contradiction and I've taken action to ensure that this article won't be created in mainspace now. Deb (talk) 17:06, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Take all the measures you want. The fact remains that (1) this person is the n°1 influencer in France (it's a country in Europe), (2) that this notoriety is documented by numerous focused articles, in the most serious French newspapers, (3) that these articles deal as much with this person as with the phenomenon she creates, (4) that I put 20 links of this type in the article (it was removed); (5) that the arguments presented (I'd have some kind of interest, etc.) are unfounded and, above all, irrelevant to the preceding points, while the person in question meets wikipedia's criteria.

That being said, you don't want an article on the French influencer n°1, so there won't be one. Your choice and I've said all I have to say on the subject. RIK813 (talk) 19:21, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is no "graphic description" in the sense of a search for the creepy. What you call "graphic description of alleged child pornography" is exactly the content of the complaint filed by the two MPs, which is being investigated by the Rouen public prosecutor. The terms were quoted in serious newspapers (Le Monde, Le Figaro), which are not in the habit of descending into the gloomy. --- You suggest some kind of strategy in the fact that there are several months between articles, but in reality the political debate on the bill is obviously out of step with the facts that explicitly motivate it. RIK813 (talk) 19:04, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]