User talk:D0kkaebi

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

Re:Yakgwa a kind of Yukwa?
Caspian blue 16:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

François Asselineau
Hello Lawren00, sorry for bringing a change without discussing it with you, it wasn't disrespect. As explained, it seems to me that the expression "Republican People's Union" is more suitable than "Union Popular Republican", particularly for political parties. Obviously, the noun is always placed last and "People's" is more frequent than "Popular". Thanks for your attention. --Balerian (talk) 16:22, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Dear Balerian, Thank you for your comment and explanation. It seems like François Asselineau prefers Union Popular Republican for the English translation of his party's name. Like you, I hesitated a lot with several different names. --Lawren00 (talk) 23:50, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I share a few points. 1) You haven't replied to my proposal. 2) You haven't specified the source of that assertion "It seems like François Asselineau prefers Union Popular Republican for the English translation of his party's name." 3) Someone else made a change of the party name - different of the supposed Asselineau's preference - without discussing it with you, you haven't reverted that change. --Balerian (talk) 19:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Balerian, here you can see the discussion on their Facebook http://www.facebook.com/upr.francoisasselineau/posts/180287375347386 where they conclude that Popular Republican Union is the proper one. Additionally, you can see the Union populaire républicaine, the Alsatian party that existed between the 2 wars, is also translated in English by Popular Republican Union. For the point 3), I never revert any changes I agree with. --Lawren00 (talk) 07:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so it was just a copy mistake... Now, it would be great to fix the link to the political party and possibly create the article and a disambiguation page. It would be also interesting to mention his lectures through France. Do you agree with this ? --Balerian (talk) 12:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I agree with you regarding the disambiguation page and the article. However, you should always keep in mind the importance of Citing_sources while writing article. And those sources have to pass the test of Verifiability considering also that there should be No_original_research meaning published on reliable source other than the website of the political party. If you doubt that sources may be reliable, you'd better wait before engaging the redaction of the article since a positive vote for deleting an article for non reliable sources may affect the creation of the article for a very long time. For modification on the article, I suggest that you submit your changes on the discussion page of the article. It would be more appropriate than on my page. --Lawren00 (talk) 11:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

François Asselineau
Informational note: this is to let you know that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Regards,. The page about this person has been deleted on fr-wiki for lack of notability and the use you make of sources in the page here is not correct. Bokken | 木刀 13:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. On the original wikipedia (in English), verifiability is the most prominent criteria for reliability of sources. Thank you also to inform me if you bring the topic on other parts of the administration. --Lawren00 (talk) 03:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of François Asselineau for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article François Asselineau is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/François Asselineau until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. NW ( Talk ) 15:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of François Asselineau for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article François Asselineau is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/François Asselineau until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 07:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of François Asselineau for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article François Asselineau is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/François Asselineau(3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Ten Pound Hammer and company • (Otters want attention) 21:58, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 8
Hi. When you recently edited François Asselineau, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Liberation and Ministry of Economy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of François Asselineau for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article François Asselineau is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/François Asselineau until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.--Pixeltoo (talk) 16:09, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * C'mon, man, cut it out. You're repeatedly hammering on the motives of the French visitors, and not only is that a violation of WP:CIVIL, you're definitely doing your argument no favors.  I strongly suggest you refactor some of your more inflammatory comments, and stick to (a) making the case on the merits and (b) highlighting the degree to which the visitors are judging this article by another Wikipedia's rules.  Ravenswing  17:08, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this reminder. I am usually pretty calm but I will read that again if I am feeling berserk once more.
 * I saw your modifications on the article for Francois Asselineau. Until today, people who contribute to the article, except for spelling and syntax fixing, had always discussed first on the talk before proceeding big changes. There is a full paragraph that you removed that was quoting the journalist Nicolas Doze. Also, you removed that part about the patriotic point of view of Asselineau's economic report that was also sourced. Do you agree to discuss first these changes, find a consensus and then make the changes? I would think it is the easiest way to not create editing war. --Lawren00 (talk) 23:39, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 6
Hi. When you recently edited List of political parties in France, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Internationalism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 13
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * List of political parties in France (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Left and Pierre Bernard


 * François Asselineau (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to AFP

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:04, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of François Asselineau


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page that you created was tagged as a test page and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

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.

Disambiguation link notification for October 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Carpetbagger, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jack Lang (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:03, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Popular Republican Union (2007), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page GDF (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:10, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

UPR et nombre d'adhérents
Les chiffres qui ont été modifiés ne sont pas issus du travail des journalistes (sauf figaro) mais des auto-déclarations de membres de l'UPR (ces chiffres sont repris au conditionnel ou avec réserve). Ce n'est donc pas du vandalisme. --86.74.28.232 (talk) 01:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for your contribution. I think it would be better to discuss via the discussion page when you want to remove sourced information. Regarding the "self-declaration", in France there is no official office in charge of checking or auditing each political parties members. Thus, any number regarding political parties members are always from the party's self declaration. If the media are quoting those numbers, it means they consider those as significant or valuable enough to appear in their article. Thus they can be used in Wikipedia article. I hope it is now clear for you. D0kkaebi (talk) 08:58, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The Popular Republican Union (2007) discussion page is a place where you don't debate before to impose your POV. (l'argument il n'y a pas de comptage officiel des adhérent-e-s et tous les partis font pareil n'est pas encyclopédique (j'espère que c'est clair pour vous maintenant). --86.68.87.55 (talk) 22:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


 * If you attempt once more to remove sourced information from this article because you dislike them, I will report you to the vandalism board. D0kkaebi (talk) 01:03, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If you don't understand difference between primary source and secondary, you aren't serious, you are a vandal.--86.68.87.55 (talk) 17:08, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Un site comme lamayenneonadore.fr n'est pas un site de journalisme reconnu ou de qualité pour servir de source dans une encyclopédie.--86.68.87.55 (talk) 17:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Votre tentative de me faire bloquer comme vandale a échoué. Reconnaîtrez vous des sources de qualité d'autres plus discutable ? Ready to talk ? The use you make of sources in the page here is not correct--86.68.87.55 (talk) 02:17, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * They just said you are not vandal, so I will not consider your contributions as vandalism. But it does not mean you are right to remove these sources. The sources are independent from Asselineau, and they are reliable, so they are valid. Would you like to go through an arbitrage? D0kkaebi (talk) 17:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I had to decline this post at WP:3O because of lack of thorough discussion between both parties. Unless both the sides present their views properly, a third opinion cannot be given. For more information see the main instructions page and feel free to repost later. Also, most of the discussion is in French; while on English Wikipedia, please communicate in English; any non-involved volunteer will probably not understand this. Good day, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 01:59, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Veuillez trouver des sources et non des chiffres de membres de l'UPR repris au conditionnel ou entre guillemets dans des articles sans vérification aucune.--78.250.33.145 (talk) 14:58, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * In Wikipedia English, please use English. Admin and I told you several times. D0kkaebi (talk) 00:14, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

February 2015
Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made to User talk:86.68.87.55 has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page.The editor you reported to AIV did not commit vandalism. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 01:51, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

July 2015
you have denounced my legitimate editions as vandalism. This process is shameful on your part but recurrent.--Francis Le français (talk) 00:07, 1 July 2015 (UTC) How do you call a the creation of new Wiki account just to remove sourced information and blank part of the article? D0kkaebi (talk) 00:43, 1 July 2015 (UTC) Your contempt and your lack of response (to ip) explains my account creation. Removing errors and misinformation as low quality sites is due to the five pillars of Wikipedia.--Francis Le français (talk) 22:53, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Lie again ?
admin said :

As a result of recent edit-warring, I've protected the article for four days. I encourage both of you to continue discussing your proposed changes to the article at Talk:Popular Republican Union (2007) and, if necessary, to pursue WP:Dispute resolution. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:46, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

You doesn't understand that you are concerned ( both of you ) and yet you have made changes without obtaining consensus with me ( both of you) in the talk page ?--Francis Le français (talk) 00:16, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

PRU & consensus
Comprenez vous que votre action de ce jour, est contraire aux usages ordinaires de participation libre de tous au projet wikipédia ? Ce point n'était pas débattu dans la liste en page de discussion donc je comprend que tous les propositions de changements doivent passer par la page de discussion et que les changements que vous avez effectué récemment sans obtenir de consensus en p.d.d, sont des erreurs ou des fautes de votre part.--Francis Le français (talk) 13:52, 8 July 2015 (UTC) your use is contrary to the norm of free participation of all users of Wikipedia. This topic was not discussed in the talk page, or you yourself made changes without consensus.--Francis Le français (talk) 13:58, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You have another joke like that? It is you who modified the article without prior discussion nor consensus. Respect the advise of the admin otherwise we would have to refer to him. D0kkaebi (talk) 23:34, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Vous comprenez que ce que vous m'imposez est contraire à la libre participation de tous et toutes ! Ou alors vous considérez que nous (tous les deux) devons trouvez un consensus sur tout et que vous avez procédez récemment à des changements sans obtenir de consensus 1. pourquoi effacez vous mes contributions ?.--Francis Le français (talk) 01:08, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This is the third time, on English wikipedia you should communicate in English. If it is too tough for you, you can stick to the wikipedia in French. D0kkaebi (talk) 14:41, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Je propose seulement plus de compréhension et de facilité ! Why are you so ungracious (you understand this word, don't you ? ) ? --Francis Le français (talk) 17:05, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The discussions are to be evidence of consensus. If you do not want to use the common language of this wikipedia (English), I recommend you to not participate here but rather participate on the French Wikipedia. D0kkaebi (talk) 03:29, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If you don't understand the rules (en.wikipedia) or if you want to bypass the rules, i advise you strongly not to participate (fr or en wikipedia).--Francis Le français (talk) 21:04, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

revue republicaine
[ça] ce n'est pas une source encyclopédique / it's not a reliable source.--Francis Le français (talk) 07:35, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ? without discussion ? see above.--Francis Le français (talk) 04:00, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No RFC on this topic so ...--Francis Le français (talk) 09:46, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Toujours pas de réponse sur ce point précis. Still no answer on this point ! Why do not you want to discuss or participate in a collaborative way ? This link is invalid and non reliable.--Francis Le français (talk) 15:16, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * toujours rien, pas de réponse pas d'attitude collaborative.--Francis Le français (talk) 16:22, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

RFC
Your RFC request doesn't block the article on a version that suits you.--Francis Le français (talk) 22:51, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not mine, it is ours. If you continue your non-collaborative behaviour of ignoring the normal procedures, I will open a procedure for temporary ban. D0kkaebi (talk) 05:38, 12 August 2015 (UTC)c
 * I had to remind you of all encyclopedic principles (WP:OR - WP:NEWSPAPER WP:NOT ...). Your attitude is not collaborative at all.--Francis Le français (talk) 13:05, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It is answered on the relevant talk page. D0kkaebi (talk) 05:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Sur ce point précis "revue républicaine" vous ne l'avez jamais évoqué, ni répondu...--Francis Le français (talk) 16:22, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Here, you can read to learn about Revue Republicaine. D0kkaebi (talk) 05:00, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * En plus de ne pas répondre aux critères de source de qualité (qui ne demande pas de consensus), ce lien est invalide ce qui prouve que vous ne l'avez même pas vérifié...
 * In addition to not meet the quality criteria source (which does not require consensus - a not reliable source isn't good, it's a en:WP rule), this link is invalid, proving that you did not even check ...--Francis Le français (talk) 06:27, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

PRU
this edit is not very honest. She/he pretexts only 1 cause (false cause of removal source because it's a non reliable source) to perform several unwarranted changes. Ce résumé d'édition et votre action éditoriale ne correspondent pas. Vous prétextez une seule cause (cause qui est fausse- cette source n'est pas encyclopédique voir ci dessus) pour effectuer divers changements qui améliorent l'article. --Francis Le français (talk) 07:43, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No responses but undo ! It's your usual method ?--Francis Le français (talk) 04:01, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It's funny because you reproach to other to make changes without discussion but actually this is exactly what you are doing and what several people including admin told you to not do. I proceeded to rfc to get other people opinion so that we will quickly know what is right or wrong. D0kkaebi (talk) 05:20, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Very funny like wikipedia's rules ?--Francis Le français (talk) 13:02, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Shinsi
Deletion of Shinsi has been requested by User:Ogress for being a "a random place-name from Korean mythistory". You have partaken on this subject in the past, and I ask that you partake on the current discussion of its deletion here. Thank you. Cydevil38 (talk) 11:46, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Vandalisme
En français, je considère vos derniers reverts comme autant de vandalisme, votre attitude "mutique" et agressive comme non collaborative.--Francis Le français (talk) 01:19, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

DRN
Hi, in your this recent DRN entry you have not mentioned in brief what is your dispute regarding content. You should talk about content. You also suppose to notify involved users regarding DRN. I have notified 2 autoconfirmed users in list, now you notify involved IPs in dispute. Thank you. -- Human 3015   Send WikiLove   08:35, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello  Human 3015   Send WikiLove , thank you for your message. Yes I didn't mention it because the space was too small to explain it so I gave a link. Let me copy that down here. For the IP, I will inform them, thanks for the reminder. I hope you can help on the discussion and find a consensus. It is been 6 months this war is happening and I tried every formal process, everything keeps being refused. D0kkaebi (talk) 22:47, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

September 2015
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; 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. &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  14:56, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * I know you are semi-new here, but did you not read the notice above? Reverting again is not the right move. Please do not revert again, allow me to try to sort through this mess. I trust that you mean well and the fact that you tried to seek help before says a lot, but understand that reverting back to your preferred version over and over makes you just as disruptive. This may take a while, so please be patient. &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  02:38, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Even this case has been rejected on DRN, so what these editors should do? Mediation is also has been rejected by Mediation Committee. They also need someone fluent in French. None of the editor is in mood of droping stick.-- Human 3015   Send WikiLove   02:55, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I've got people working on it. Indeed the French is the big barrier here, but we're trying. We appreciate your patience &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  02:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello thank you for the quick action. The best neutral contributor on the page is  Ravenswing , I might be able to help sorting this out. D0kkaebi (talk) 04:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I took to IRC and was gracious enough to take a detailed look. I hope I sum up their analysis accurately in saying we found it to inconclusive if there was a right version. It all seems highly disputable, from what I can tell, with no serious policy concerns involved. I think if you round up a few French speaking editors for another WP:DRN discussion you might get something out of it this time. Perhaps  who had offered to help at one point. We will take more administrative actions if necessary. Sorry I could not do more for you &mdash;  MusikAnimal  talk  05:22, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I repeat my willingness to help both editors copy edit the article for neutrality and verifiability. I could present a new draft myself, but as I stated before my time frame would be around a month or two. It's up to them, otherwise I'll simply tag it and move on. FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  10:34 am, Yesterday (UTC−3)
 * Oh wow, unbelievable. This edir war is over, another user is taking the relay right away and moreover revealing on the talk page my previous nickname which i had to request to replace since it can link to my private information. And my previous nickname is the justification of the revert.

User:MusikAnimal is there any way to remove my previous nickname and warn user to not mention it?D0kkaebi (talk) 15:21, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you. Azurfrog (talk) 09:17, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Neither Right or left
F.N also appears as "neither right nor left" but it is the secondary or tertiary sources of quality that are encyclopaedic knowledge (wikipedia is an encyclopedia), So this party is classified on the "far-right" not "centrist".

Le front national aussi se présente comme "ni de droite ni de gauche" mais ce sont les sources secondaires ou tertiaires de qualité qui constituent un savoir encyclopédique donc ce parti est classé à l'extrême droite et pas centriste.--Francis Le français (talk) 11:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Conflict of interest on Wikipedia
Hello,. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Popular Republican Union (2007), you may have a conflict of interest. People with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, see the conflict of interest guideline and frequently asked questions for organizations. In particular, please:


 * avoid editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, its competitors, or projects and products you or they are involved with;
 * instead, propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the template);
 * avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
 * exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing, and autobiographies. Thank you. Brianhe (talk) 16:27, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments and requests
Wikipedia is a widely-used reference work and managing conflict of interest is essential for ensuring the integrity of Wikipedia and retaining the public's trust in it. As in academia, COI is managed here in two steps - disclosure and a form of peer review. Please note that there is no bar to being part of the Wikipedia community if you have a conflict of interest; there are just some things we ask you to do (and if you are paid, some things you need to do).

Disclosure is the most important, and first, step. While I am not asking you to disclose your identity (anonymity is strictly protecting by out WP:OUTING policy) would you please disclose if you have some connection with French political parties? You can answer how ever you wish (giving personally identifying information or not), but if there is a connection with French political parties, please disclose it. After you respond (and you can just reply below), perhaps we can talk a bit about editing Wikipedia, to give you some more orientation to how this place works. You can reply here - I am watching this page.

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) 14:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

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) 14:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Asselineau's Martyrs
Same pack that harrassed you over the years until 2015 acts again and again. I got blocked indefinitely on fr.wikipedia on the ground of Asselineau fanatism. Same happened to Prométhée26 one week later, even though he tried all possible dispute resolution procedures. They break all possible WP principles, especialy the 2nd of it 5 pillars: WP:5P2 Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view (“we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context rather than as "the truth" or "the best view".“)

They don't care. They have the power and use it over and over, banning loads of contradicting voices, terrorizing the others, breaking the rules with no humanity in favor of their own biased point of view. In plain sight.

Read La face sombre de Wikipedia (1) : le cas François Asselineau, par Silice, mardi 28 février 2017. It continues today, even worse.

I would like to be in contact with Promethée26, I cannot at the moment. Could you help?

I would like this to be known!

We still go forward. Respect to you. (all details on my page) Cvrx (talk) 10:15, 6 July 2017 (UTC)