User Talk: Royge 12

Server-side rendered snapshot of this editor's Wikipedia talk page discussions.

August 2025

left|25px|alt=Information icon ↗ Hello Royge 12. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements ↗. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest ↗ (COI) editing that involves being employed (or being compensated in any way) by a person, group, company or organization to promote their interests. '''Paid advocacy on Wikipedia must be disclosed even if you have not specifically been asked to edit Wikipedia.''' Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view ↗ and what Wikipedia is not ↗ and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation ↗ regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization ↗.

Paid advocates are strongly discouraged from direct article editing and should instead propose changes on the talk page ↗ of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation ↗ process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are '''<u>required</u> by the Wikimedia Terms of Use ↗ to disclose your employer, client and affiliation.''' You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Royge 12. The template {{tl|Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{tlc|paid|2=user=Royge 12|3=employer=<var>InsertName</var>|4=client=<var>InsertName</var>}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, '''do not edit further''' until you answer this message.  <sub>signed, </sub>'''''Rosguill''''' <sup>''talk''</sup> 19:28, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

:Your baseless accusations are not only scandalous but completely unacceptable .
:1) My article on Gameloft Montreal is exemplary in sourcing, neutral, and I have even heavily emphasized the difficulties faced by the studio, maintening full objectivity and strictly adhering to all encyclopedic Wikipédia standards.
:2) I have never worked for nor paid by Gameloft. Accusing me without any evidence is a serious defamation and a clear misconduct. Making such a accusation without tangible proof is absurd and goes against Wikipédia's fundamental principles.
:3) The Page on Gameloft Montréal already exists on the French Wikipedia, is well documented, recognized, and clearly meets notability criteria. Claiming otherwise is false and shows blatant bad faith.
:In truth, you are the one not respecting Wikipedia's rules by trying to remove legitimate content through false accusations and flawed arguments. This behavior seriously undermines the integrity and neutrality of the encyclopedia.
:I demand that you restore the previous version of the article. If you fail to do so, I will take all necessary measures to protect the validity of this article and uphold the rules. Royge 12 (talk) 20:05, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
::I add that all the numerous sources of the article come from independent media, and I am only summarizing what each of these sources says in an encyclopedic manner. Royge 12 (talk) 20:12, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
:::These sources are the same as those of the French version of Gameloft Montreal, I can't believe the situation, it's completely absurd. Royge 12 (talk) 20:13, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
::::https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gameloft_Montr%C3%A9al#:~:text=Gameloft%20Montr%C3%A9al%2C%20aussi%20appel%C3%A9%20Gameloft,actuellement%20pr%C3%A8s%20de%20400%20employ%C3%A9s. Royge 12 (talk) 20:16, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::As you can see, many prominent contributors have participated in creating the French Wikipedia page for Gameloft Montréal. Given that Canada is a bilingual country, with both English and French as official languages, it is only natural and appropriate to have an English version of the Gameloft Montréal page as well. Royge 12 (talk) 20:24, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::Your exclusive focus on Gameloft across en.wiki and fr.wiki draws valid reason for concern. Separately, you need to learn how to engage with other editors in good faith ↗, rather than immediately jumping to accusations of abuse. English Wikipedia and French Wikipedia are separate projects, so the fact that a page was accepted on one does not mean that it is necessarily compliant for the other.
:::::I'd suggest that your best path forward here is:
:::::#Refrain from frivolous accusations of abuse
:::::#Explain your persistent interest in Gameloft ↗
:::::#Present the WP:THREE ↗ best sources that demonstrate the notaiblity of Gameloft Montreal ↗ separately from Gameloft ↗
:::::<sub>signed, </sub>'''''Rosguill''''' <sup>''talk''</sup> 20:26, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::Here are 4 major sources Recent article from the international media EuroGamer ↗ on the Dungeons & Dragons ↗ game from Gameloft Montreal, explicitly mentioning the studio, and also talking about Gameloft Montreal's previous game, the global success Disney Dreamlight Valley ↗, which profoundly changed the strategy of the entire Gameloft ↗ group (see source 5 below)
::::::https://www.eurogamer.net/new-dungeons-and-dragons-game-on-the-way-from-disney-dreamlight-valley-team
::::::2. Article from the Canadian national media La Presse ↗ :https://www.lapresse.ca/affaires/techno/2025-05-26/gameloft-montreal/feter-ses-25-ans-avec-des-donjons-et-des-dragons.php ↗
::::::+ Old article from the La Presse :https://www.lapresse.ca/affaires/techno/mobilite/200809/16/01-21362-des-applications-made-in-quebec.php
::::::3. Gameloft Montreal's first national media library appearance in....2000<nowiki/>https://numerique.banq.qc.ca/patrimoine/details/52327/2936660
::::::Bonus :
::::::4. all the games Gameloft Montreal has worked on:https://www.mobygames.com/company/18589/gameloft-divertissements-inc/
::::::5. Aticle from Le Figaro ↗ (a very important and historic French media outlet) focusing on Gameloft's recovery after a period of crisis.... attributed to the release of Disney Dreamlight Valley, developed 100% by...Gameloft Montreal :
::::::https://www.lefigaro.fr/medias/jeux-video-gameloft-reussit-son-virage-vers-la-console-20221103
::::::I don't contribute at all to Gameloft, but also Luc Besson ↗, Dracula ↗, Pathé ↗ (French film studio), Gaumont ↗ (French film studio) and, yes, Gameloft ↗.
::::::My contributions on these topics are because they are pages on culture (and its industry) little documented, especially Gameloft, which has extremely weak Wikipedia pages compared to the influence of the group and its importance (like unfortunately all the studios known for mobile games on Wikipedia). He repeats, Gameloft Montreal is located in Canada, a country that has French and Anfalis as its official language, so it is illogical that Gameloft Montreal has a big Wikipedia page in French and nothing on the English Wikipedia.
::::::I don’t contribute exclusively to Gameloft, but also to Luc Besson, Dracula, Pathé (french historic cinéma studio) and Gaumont (french historic cinéma studio). My contributions focus on these cultural topics (and their industries) that are often under-documented, especially Gameloft. Indeed, the Wikipedia pages for this group are very weak compared to its influence and importance, which is unfortunately common for studios known for mobile games. Additionally, Gameloft Montreal is located in Canada, a country officially bilingual in French and English, so it is illogical that the French Wikipedia page is much more detailed than the English one. Royge 12 (talk) 20:59, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Sorry for the wording error at the beginning of my reply, i meant:
:::::::3 majors sources.
:::::::# Recent article from the international media...*
:::::::Royge 12 (talk) 21:02, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::not at all only at Gameloft* definitely... Royge 12 (talk) 21:03, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::and sorry for my bad english, i'm french and my english is still imperfect. Royge 12 (talk) 21:05, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::I can still give you several articles that specifically talk about Gameloft Montreal and not about Gameloft globally. Many articles from Canadian and regional newspapers and some other articles from international media. Gameloft Montreal is really a major studio in Canada but also in Gameloft, since it is the biggest studio in the group + the oldest still in operation with Gameloft Paris ( head office). This is also why there is such a big French Wikipedia page for Gameloft Montreal... as big as the Gameloft group french page. Royge 12 (talk) 21:10, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::Oops, I gave the same link twice for the independent media La Presse ↗, here is the second article, much more recent and focusing on the first 25 years of the Gameloft Montreal studio (founded in 2000) :
:::::::::::https://www.lapresse.ca/affaires/techno/2025-05-26/gameloft-montreal/feter-ses-25-ans-avec-des-donjons-et-des-dragons.php
:::::::::::Moreover, although not mentioned in this article, Gameloft Montréal launched Gameloft’s most popular franchise: Asphalt. With around 400 employees, Gameloft Montréal is one of the largest (and oldest) studios in Quebec. To make a quick comparison, Gameloft Montréal is like New York in the United States : it’s not the capital or headquarters, but it’s a city just as iconic as Washington, which could be compared to Gameloft Paris, the group’s main office. Royge 12 (talk) 21:21, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::And it's not "advertising" to say that, it's just factual: Gameloft Montreal is indeed the largest active studio in the group, Gameloft Montreal is indeed one of the largest studios in Canada, and Gameloft Montreal is indeed a historic studio of Montreal and Gameloft.
::::::::::::As I also said in my article that Gameloft Montreal experienced major difficulties from 2016 to 2021 and at the same time during this time the Gameloft group had closed many studios, without touching Montreal: again this is in no way advertising, but objective facts, and nothing but facts. Royge 12 (talk) 21:31, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::So, focusing on the sourcing you provided, I think that some of the sources presented here get part way to meeting WP:ORGCRITE ↗ as an independent entity. One thing that's undermining the presented sources is that to a significant extent, the discussion of Gameloft Montreal is deferred to quotes from people involved with the company. For example, the Eurogamer article ↗ has 3 paragraphs about Gameloft Montreal, but only one of them is actually in the publication's own voice ({{tq|This upcoming PC and console release will be helmed by Gameloft Montreal, which also created Lego Star Wars Castaways, and a number of games within the Dungeon Hunter series.}}), the others are just quoting representatives of Gameloft and Wizards/Hasbro. For the purposes of meeting ORGCRITE, only the material in the publication's own voice counts.
:::::::::::::The La Presse source is perhaps the most substantial of the citations identified here. The Le Figaro source provides a strong case for Gameloft writ large, but its coverage of Gameloft Montreal is a bit more fleeting. The article in Le Soleil from 2000 is less useful, as its coverage is essentially just announcing a then-future investment. Such announcements are listed as an example of WP:ORGTRIV ↗ that doesn't really contribute towards making a case for notability (the Eurogamer coverage also arguably falls in this category). I think that with a few more articles like the La Presse and Le Figaro coverage in hand, you'd be able to make a case that would likely lead to the article being kept.
:::::::::::::As far as how to move forward, there's two routes. One would be to restore the article; technically speaking, the article was not deleted, it was blanked ↗--while that may seem like a trivial distinction, it matters because you have much more leeway to challenge a unilateral blanking than you would a formal deletion following discussion. For a blanked article, you're within your rights to simply undo ↗ the blanking and restore the page; at that point, if Onel5969 or anyone else wanted to continue to dispute the suitability of the article, they would be expected to proceed to a formal articles for deletion discussion ↗, which would allow you and other editors to comment on the page's merits, and the community would come to a collective decision about what to do. Based on the sources you've pointed out to me here, I'd give the article a 40% chance of surviving AFD.
:::::::::::::Alternatively, and this may be the better solution for now, WP:ORGCRITE ↗ only applies to the question of "should this topic have a separate page"--even if Gameloft Montreal falls short of meeting that mark, the coverage available could be used to create a detailed section on Gameloft Montreal in the article Gameloft ↗ (alongside other regional branches). If at any point the references used for that section add up to ORGCRITE for the Montreal studio, splitting off the section into a separate article will be easy and straightforward. <sub>signed, </sub>'''''Rosguill''''' <sup>''talk''</sup> 14:18, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Hello, sorry for the late reply. I just sent a message to Onel5969, if he doesn't respond, I will take the other options to ensure that the Gameloft Montreal page is maintained. There are indeed many other articles on Gameloft Montreal, it is a major studio in Montreal, studios 10 times smaller and ten times less publicized have their own Wikipedia page. I will not give up and will defend the existence of this page, which should have existed for a long time given the major influence of Gameloft Montreal. I also point out that the French Wikipedia allows the creation of pages more difficultly than the English Wikipedia, and yet the Gameloft Montreal page exists on the French Wikipedia ("Gameloft Montreal") Royge 12 (talk) 15:20, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
<div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;flex-basis: 40px">40px ↗</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the '''2025 Arbitration Committee elections ↗''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2025|end}}-1 day}}. All '''eligible users ↗''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee ↗ is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process ↗. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2025 election, please review the candidates ↗ and submit your choices on the '''2025|poll}}|voting page ↗'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:52, 18 November 2025 (UTC)</small>

</div>
</div>

Disambiguation link notification for November 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dracula: A Love Tale ↗, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page French ↗. Such links are usually incorrect ↗, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. <small>(Read the FAQ{{*}} Join us at the DPL WikiProject ↗.)</small>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 19:54, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Edits to Luc Besson ↗

I see you have changed the outcome of legal proceedings against Besson without adding a source. What is your source that he was tried on the charges and acquitted? —'''C.Fred''' (talk ↗) 20:54, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

:The source is given a few lines below the title. The Court of Cassation issued its final verdict in 2023: definitive dismissal of the case, with a complete cessation of charges/accusations against him. Claiming that there was rape, as in the title a user attempted to post, is contrary to the rules of judicial neutrality AND the law against defamation. Royge 12 (talk) 20:57, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
::https://variety.com/2023/film/global/luc-besson-rape-charges-cleared-1235650624/ Royge 12 (talk) 21:00, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
::I see how the clause dangled. It would be clearer, in the shorter wording, to change the order to "Allegations of rape and of sexual misconduct". —'''C.Fred''' (talk ↗) 21:45, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
::Other implicated user here. The section should be titled "'''Rape and sexual misconduct allegations'''" or something along those lines.
::Regardless of verity, there were allegations. They should be addressed neutrally, especially in the header which some people will view before the text itself. Another notable example is Kevin Spacey ↗, who was found not guilty on allegations ↗ of sexual misconduct by a court of law. Both the subheading and title of the entire page ↗ dedicated to the allegations do ''not'' mention "definitive clearing by the court."
::Again, please refrain from editing Luc Besson until this can get resolved here.
::Thank you! Phoeromones (talk) 21:59, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
:::False, the verdict of the justice system is final here, neutrality means precisely saying "definitively acquitted by the justice system" without interpretation, say "rape and assault" is literally saying that he committed these acts in the title, it is completely contrary to respecting Wikipedia rules and the verdict of the justice system. ~2025-41945-18 ↗ (talk) 22:01, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
::::That’s why the word "allegations" is included. Phoeromones (talk) 22:11, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
:::::Neutrality here is precisely about saying “rape accusation and definitively cleared by the courts.” These are simply facts that convey two pieces of judicial information (complaint/accusation and final verdict). Relaying only the first in the headline is a biased choice and does not respect neutrality at all. Royge 12 (talk) 22:11, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
:::Hello, a court verdict is not an opinion, especially when it's final. Simply put, one shouldn't claim that Luc Besson is innocent, but rather that he has been definitively exonerated by the courts (there's a nuance), and that's what I'm arguing. However, your suggestion to say "rape and assault" completely breaks the rules of neutrality, because the title clearly suggests that Luc Besson raped and assaulted, which constitutes defamation in light of the verdict. Furthermore, a user removed "accused of rape" and replaced it with "rape," which is outright defamation (and contrary to Wikipedia's rules). Royge 12 (talk) 22:08, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
::::My proposed subheading does not explicitly state that he did commit a crime or that he was found guilty. It states that Luc Besson had sexual misconduct allegations made against him, with the body text expounding and presenting sources stating he was acquitted. Phoeromones (talk) 22:16, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
:::::I've already said it here and also repeated it on Luc Besson's discussion page:
The proposed title (“accused of rape and sexual assault”) creates a '''significant imbalance in the presentation of information'''. By giving the impression that no judicial outcome has been reached, it '''does not accurately reflect the content of the text''', which deals '''predominantly with the judicial outcome'''.
In contrast, the original title, ''“Rape accusations and definitive acquittal by the courts”'', '''accurately summarizes both subjects addressed in the text''':
the text details the '''judicial process''', including the dropping of charges, and the director’s definitive acquittal.

The original title highlights both the '''Rape allegation and definitive clearing by the court''', which corresponds precisely to what the reader will find in the section.
Furthermore, using only “accused of rape and sexual assault” '''suggests that the allegations are still ongoing''', whereas the verdict was '''definitively confirmed by the Court of Cassation in 2023''', with '''all charges dropped'''. Omitting this information from the title creates an '''incorrect and legally inaccurate reading''', since no proceedings are currently ongoing against the director.

In summary, the original title '''preserves neutrality''', accurately reflects the full content of the text, and '''properly informs the reader''' about the allegations and their judicial outcome. The proposed title, by omitting the verdict, '''unbalances the presentation and misleads''' readers who only read the title, whereas a title should '''summarize the entirety of the text''', not just part of it.
(Furthermore, you have provided no argument showing how the original title is problematic, nor have you demonstrated in what way the original title fails to summarize the text accurately). Royge 12 (talk) 13:20, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

December 19

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

60px|left ↗
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard ↗ regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! {{clear}}

You can find the relevant discussion here ↗. Phoeromones (talk) 20:02, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

What am I missing?

Per your edit here ↗, I am apparently missing key details to your discussion. Could you clarify what you presume I'm missing? Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:33, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

10 Feb 2026 3RR warning

30px|alt=Stop icon ↗ Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an '''edit war ↗'''. This means that you are repeatedly changing a page's content back to how you believe it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree with your changes. Please ''stop editing the page'' and use the '''talk page ↗''' to work toward creating a version of the page that represents consensus ↗ among the editors involved. Wikipedia provides a page explaining how this is accomplished ↗. If discussions reach an impasse, you can request help at a relevant noticeboard ↗ or seek dispute resolution ↗ such as a third opinion ↗. In some cases, you may wish to request page protection ↗ while a discussion to resolve the dispute is ongoing.

'''If you continue edit warring, you may be blocked from editing ↗ Wikipedia'''—especially if you violate the three-revert rule ↗, which states that an editor ''must not perform more than three reverts ↗ on a single page within a 24-hour period''. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, or whether it involves the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also, please keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—'''even if you do not violate the three-revert rule'''— if things indicate that you intend to continue reverting content on the page. <span style="color:#aedfcd">FM</span><span style="color:#a6bbf5">Radio</span><sub>(talk | edits ↗ | she/her)</sub> 05:24, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

:Hello, along with Cinemont, I am the only one who has genuinely tried to open a discussion, yet I am the only one receiving an edit-war warning.
:Users :User ~2026-90034-9 and YaBoiNyarlathotep, on the other hand, have repeatedly pushed their edits without seeking prior discussion. The edit history clearly shows this, and they should therefore receive the same warning.Royge 12 (talk) 07:29, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
::en particulier YaBoiNyarlathotep, qui a été le déclencheur de la guerre d'édition (et qui est étrangement silencieux depuis l'arrivée du compte ~2026-90034-9 qui a été créé il y a moins de 15 heures) Royge 12 (talk) 07:31, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
:::My reluctance to make a proper Wikipedia account and status as Mr Bunchanumbers may look suspicious but as I have maintained throughout this whole sad episode of Wikipedia drama, I am a different person from the other various people who disagree with your attempts to polish Luc Besson's image.
:::I don't know if you can see this FMRadio, but if you could use your special mod powers to determine that I am in fact, to quote Pinocchio, a real boy, then that's just one of many of Royge 12's defences for being a page tyrant that can be done away with.
:::I think it is probably easy to see who's nose is longest when it comes to telling fibs about good neutral editing.
:::I've made two edits, one to add the ages of Luc Besson and Maïwenn to the personal life section, which fits with every other relationship in that section (funny how Royge 12 only believes that the ages need to be removed from the underage relationship). And a second edit to the title/subheading of the allegations in the Personal Life section, which Royge 12 had edited to say "totally exonerated" or something equally prejudicial.
:::I thought that Wikipedia was the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, not the encyclopedia that you can temporarily edit before starting an argument with this one weird dude in the talk page, before he reverts your edit and then bogs you down in paragraphs and paragraphs of nonsense - and then expects every other user to trawl through his web of copy paste spam when they see something which doesn't fit the standards of the website, rather than just making an edit themselves. ~2026-90034-9 ↗ (talk) 09:54, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
::::I already know your point of view, and no, I didn't do that. There's no point in trying to change the facts; the edit history will always exist. Forcing your edit while a debate is in progress is forbidden, and there's no need for personal attacks here. The debate isn't between you and me, but with the three other contributors in the other ongoing debate. Royge 12 (talk) 09:58, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::And the title you entered to delete was that of the consensus of the discussion; you are completely wrong on this point. Royge 12 (talk) 09:59, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Regarding Leon The Professional

Is it particularly relevant to mention Besson was exonerated of his sexual assault charges on the page for Leon The Professional? It doesn’t seem particularly warranted to include considering those interested could simply read his biographical page instead, and the use of the word “definitively” may be perceived as POV-pushing in Besson’s favor. JPHC2003 (talk) 23:24, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

:Hello, if the assault allegations are mentioned on the page, WP/POV requires that the legal proceedings also be mentioned. "Definitive" is the exact term used by the Court of Cassation; it's a legal term that prevents any new complaint from Sand van Roy. It's in no way a "defense," it's a legal fact, just like the complaint itself. Royge 12 (talk) 18:42, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
::Source, verdict, and exact term:
::https://variety.com/2023/film/global/luc-besson-rape-charges-cleared-1235650624/
::https://www.lepoint.fr/culture/luc-besson-la-cour-de-cassation-ecarte-definitivement-toutes-les-accusations-de-viol-21-06-2023-2525595_3.php
::https://www.liberation.fr/societe/police-justice/la-cour-de-cassation-ecarte-definitivement-les-accusations-de-viol-contre-luc-besson-20230621_QJGQ6UWY3VG4RIPSE2LLBYYAKQ/ Royge 12 (talk) 18:46, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

CS1 error on Asphalt: Urban GT ↗

25px|alt=|link= ↗ Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have '''automatically detected''' that this edit ↗ performed by you, on the page :Asphalt: Urban GT ↗, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A URL ↗ error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters contains an invalid URL. Please edit the article to add the valid URL. ([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Asphalt:_Urban_GT&action=edit&minor=minor&summary=Fixing+reference+error+raised+by+%5B%5BUser%3AQwerfjkl%20(bot)%7CQwerfjkl%20(bot)%5D%5D Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:Qwerfjkl%20(bot)/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F1339809675%7CAsphalt:%20Urban%20GT%5D%5D Ask for help])

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive ↗, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:Qwerfjkl/Botpreload&editintro=User:Qwerfjkl/Boteditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:Qwerfjkl&preloadtitle=Qwerfjkl%20(bot)%20–%20Royge_12&section=new&preloadparams%5b%5d={{FULLPAGENAMEE:Asphalt: Urban GT}}&preloadparams%5b%5d=1339809675 report it to my operator].
Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 12:54, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

CS1 error on Asphalt (series) ↗

25px|alt=|link= ↗ Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have '''automatically detected''' that this edit ↗ performed by you, on the page :Asphalt (series) ↗, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A URL ↗ error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters contains an invalid URL. Please edit the article to add the valid URL. ([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Asphalt_(series)&action=edit&minor=minor&summary=Fixing+reference+error+raised+by+%5B%5BUser%3AQwerfjkl%20(bot)%7CQwerfjkl%20(bot)%5D%5D Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:Qwerfjkl%20(bot)/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F1339810564%7CAsphalt%20(series)%5D%5D Ask for help])

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive ↗, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:Qwerfjkl/Botpreload&editintro=User:Qwerfjkl/Boteditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:Qwerfjkl&preloadtitle=Qwerfjkl%20(bot)%20–%20Royge_12&section=new&preloadparams%5b%5d={{FULLPAGENAMEE:Asphalt (series)}}&preloadparams%5b%5d=1339810564 report it to my operator].
Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 13:00, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

CS1 error on Gaumont ↗

25px|alt=|link= ↗ Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have '''automatically detected''' that this edit ↗ performed by you, on the page :Gaumont ↗, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A missing title ↗ error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. ([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaumont&action=edit&minor=minor&summary=Fixing+reference+error+raised+by+%5B%5BUser%3AQwerfjkl%20(bot)%7CQwerfjkl%20(bot)%5D%5D Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:Qwerfjkl%20(bot)/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F1344467368%7CGaumont%5D%5D Ask for help])

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive ↗, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:Qwerfjkl/Botpreload&editintro=User:Qwerfjkl/Boteditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:Qwerfjkl&preloadtitle=Qwerfjkl%20(bot)%20–%20Royge_12&section=new&preloadparams%5b%5d={{FULLPAGENAMEE:Gaumont}}&preloadparams%5b%5d=1344467368 report it to my operator].
Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 17:11, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

May 2026

25px|alt=Information icon ↗ Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at :Gameloft ↗. Your edits appear to be disruptive ↗ and have been or will be reverted ↗.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute ↗ with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page ↗, and seek consensus ↗ with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution ↗ page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards ↗.

If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ↗.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines ↗, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges ↗. Thank you. DMacks (talk) 20:22, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

:I fully respect Wikipedia's rules. As the third largest French video game group, stating "Gameloft is an important French video game group" is not promotional; it is factual, as required by Wikipedia. Royge 12 (talk) 22:59, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
::"Important" is fluff. What is important about it? That's what is factual, not an evaluative opinion. See MOS:INTRO ↗, a WP consensus guideline that tells you not to do what you did. DMacks (talk) 04:35, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

CS1 error on Gameloft Brisbane ↗

25px|alt=|link= ↗ Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have '''automatically detected''' that this edit ↗ performed by you, on the page :Gameloft Brisbane ↗, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A dates ↗ error. References show this error when one of the date-containing parameters is incorrectly formatted. Please edit the article to correct the date and ensure it is formatted to follow the Wikipedia Manual of Style's guidance on dates ↗. ([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gameloft_Brisbane&action=edit&minor=minor&summary=Fixing+reference+error+raised+by+%5B%5BUser%3AQwerfjkl%20(bot)%7CQwerfjkl%20(bot)%5D%5D Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:Qwerfjkl%20(bot)/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F1353718040%7CGameloft%20Brisbane%5D%5D Ask for help])

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive ↗, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:Qwerfjkl/Botpreload&editintro=User:Qwerfjkl/Boteditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:Qwerfjkl&preloadtitle=Qwerfjkl%20(bot)%20–%20Royge_12&section=new&preloadparams%5b%5d={{FULLPAGENAMEE:Gameloft Brisbane}}&preloadparams%5b%5d=1353718040 report it to my operator].
Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 23:52, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

May 21

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

link=|25px|alt=Information icon ↗
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring ↗ regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring ↗.  Thank you. Martineden83 (talk) 22:35, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

May 2026

<div class="user-block" style="padding: 5px; margin-bottom: 0.5em; border: 1px solid var(--border-color-base, #a2ab91); background-color: var(--background-color-warning-subtle, #fef6e7); color:inherit; min-height: 40px">40px|left|alt=Stop icon with clock ↗<div style="margin-left:45px">You have been '''blocked ↗''' from editing for a period of '''24 hours''' for edit warring ↗. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions ↗. </div><div style="margin-left:45px">During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes ↗ and seek consensus ↗. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution ↗, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection ↗.</div><div style="margin-left:45px">If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks ↗, then submit a request through the unblock wizard ↗ or through <span class="plainlinks">[{{fullurl:Special:MyTalk|action=edit&section=new&editintro=Template:Unblock/editintro&preloadtitle=Unblock+request&preload=Template:Unblock/preload&preloadparams%5b%5d=}} your talk page]</span>.  ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:48, 21 May 2026 (UTC)</div></div>

:Can I report the other user who did exactly the same thing? I will also appeal. Royge 12 (talk) 22:52, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
::Whom exactly? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:17, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 19

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gameloft Montreal ↗, a link pointing to the disambiguation page IP ↗ was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

{| style="margin: 1em 4em;"
|- style="vertical-align: top;"
| alt=Teahouse logo|link=w:en:WP:Teahouse|File:WP teahouse logo 2.png by User:Heatherawalls, licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 ↗
| <div style="background-color: #fcfbed; color: #393D38; padding: 0.4em 1em; border-radius: 10px; font-size: 1.1em;">
Hello '''Royge 12'''! The thread you created at the Teahouse ↗, {{tq|contributor who requests sources beyond what Wikipedia requires}}, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion ↗. If you have follow-up questions, please {{Edit |1=Wikipedia:Teahouse |2=create a new thread |section=new |preload=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Preload |preloadtitle=Follow-up to contributor who requests sources beyond what Wikipedia requires ↗}}.

<small>
See also the help page about the archival process. ↗
The archival was done by {{noping|lowercase sigmabot III}}, and this notification was delivered by {{noping|KiranBOT}}, both automated accounts ↗. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{tlx|bots|deny{{=}}KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:04, 7 July 2026 (UTC)</small>

<div><small></small></div>
</div>
|}