The Powers That Be
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.
Gikü (
talk) 21:15, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Why do you suport and protect the fake infomation on this page https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSA_Steaua_Bucure%C8%99ti_(football) ?
Is wikipedia just o tool to deceive people? AntonescuFCSB47 ( talk) 09:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
All the information on that particular page is true. If you're going to accuse me of lying, please also offer some evidence to support your claim. - TPTB ( talk) 12:14, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
It seams that I can't post links, so enter UEFA's site (be it UCL or UEL) and have a look where the history is. That team from Liga IV isn't organised as the ex champion of europe (1986) by any national or international federation (FRF, LPF or UEFA).
The lawsuit between CSA and FCSB is only about the brand, not the trophies, not the history and surely not about the sport identity.
1. The court's decision was only for the brand 2. All the Football Federations recognize FCSB as Steaua's successor 3. The majority of people know that FCSB is the real FC Steaua. I mean there are only 2000-3000 people from the ex Steaua ULTRAS who betrayed the team for personal interests VS millions of people who support the team from Liga 1.
So Legal, Social and by the Football federations, FCSB is the ex-FC Steaua!
PS: What really happened! In the comunist era, each fotbal team was owned be a minister, company or a state force. FC Steaua was owned by the army (Ministry of Defence). This is something that I think you know already.
But in 1998 the Army gave the fotbal team up to a non-profit association because of UEFA rule implementations (no departmental team was allowed in the European competitions). Then by 2003 the team collected many depths and was nearly declared bankrupt by the court. But in 2003 the team was reorganized as an action based society, Becali bought the majority of the stock and become the owner of the team. There is nothing illegal with that!
So the page has so much bull**** information......
AntonescuFCSB47 ( talk) 12:51, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
AHA it is clear for me now, Never trust this begging for money site with untrained and lazy admins/ editors.
I really consider you a stupid person. I said already that the court's decision was only for the brand Doesn't matter even if this deceiving page exists, people will still know that the real Steaua is in LIGA 1!
AntonescuFCSB47 ( talk) 15:16, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from
FC Steaua București to
CSA Steaua București (football) (your addition has since been removed). 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. 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. If you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at
Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. —
Diannaa 🍁 (
talk) 15:38, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
You are mistaken. The page
FC Steaua București is in fact a fake page, with false information, that is not backed by any real evidence. That particular team, called Fotbal Club Fcsb, has used the Steaua brand illegally. Judges in Romania have ruled that it should change its name immediately and stop using the Steaua Brand. -
TPTB (
talk) 20:17, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
I will report you to an administrator, you are adding fake information to that page! 8Dodo8 ( talk · contribs) 11:01, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
You may be
blocked from editing without further warning the next time you
vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at
FC Steaua București.
Giant
Snowman 11:09, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Please refrain from abusing
warning or blocking templates, as you did to
User talk:8Dodo8. Doing so is a violation of
Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. 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. Thank you.
Pkbwcgs (
talk) 12:05, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for making a report on
Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and
all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, it appears that the editor you reported may not have engaged in
vandalism, or the user was not sufficiently or appropriately
warned. Please note there is a difference between
vandalism and unhelpful or misguided edits made in
good faith. If the user continues to vandalise after a recent final warning, please re-report it. Thank you.
Pkbwcgs (
talk) 12:09, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
You are mistaken. What he did was vandalism. Check the references to the article and you'll see that all the information added to that page was correct. He replaced the correct information with old, outdated information, to promote his own agenda. He is a supporter of a rival team and wants to vandalize the CSA Steaua București (football) page - TPTB ( talk) 14:52, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Boing! said Zebedee (
talk) 16:11, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
TPTB ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Decline reason:
You did indeed attack another user and posted a blatant attack on a living person in violation of WP:BLP. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 19:14, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I was blocked for reporting vandals and pointing out that they were in fact vandals. Just take a look at the edit history of the CSA Steaua București (football) and you will see that all the people that I have reported did nothing but vandalize that page. - TPTB ( talk) 17:42, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Please stop edit warring at {{ UEFA Champions League winners}}. You can discuss the matter at WT:FOOTY. SLBedit ( talk) 22:59, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Citeste Talk:CSA Steaua București (football)#RfC on this article's content si o sa vezi din nou ca adevaratul vandal esti tu. Asteptam decizia tribunalului in legatura cu palmaresul, pana atunci FCSB e Steaua. A fost confirmat si de un articol pe site-ul LPF, care avea statisticile din 1947 pana azi. Succes in Liga a 4-a! 8Dodo8 ( talk · contribs) 22:07, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.
Giant
Snowman 09:31, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
If you are connected to someone or something you have written about (a few examples are writing about yourself, your business, your band, a member of your family, your client) then you should be aware that Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline discourages you from writing about that subject. The main reason for that is that experience over the years indicates that editors with such a connection to a subject they are writing about are likely to find it very difficult, or even impossible, to stand back from their writing and see how it will look from the detached perspective of an outsider, so that they are likely to write in ways that look promotional to others, even if they sincerely think they are writing in a neutral way. Also, if your editing forms all or part of work for which you are paid, whether as an employee, as a contractor, or in any other capacity, the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use require you to state who is paying you, and what your connection to them is. The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 14:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Hello, TPTB. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
The file File:Logo of Commercial Property Executive.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Unused logo with no article used, it's also can't move to commons because of an unused logo will be deleted as of out of project scope.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
files for discussion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Willy1018 (
talk) 09:39, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Logo for the Right Alternative political party.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 13:22, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
tgeorgescu (
talk) 17:35, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Due to your Disruptive editing, tagging FCSB with a speedy delete, you have been blocked from that page. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 19:00, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
If you continue to edit disruptively in relation to this topic, I will seek a topic ban. Giant Snowman 12:59, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
The Powers That Be
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.
Gikü (
talk) 21:15, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Why do you suport and protect the fake infomation on this page https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSA_Steaua_Bucure%C8%99ti_(football) ?
Is wikipedia just o tool to deceive people? AntonescuFCSB47 ( talk) 09:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
All the information on that particular page is true. If you're going to accuse me of lying, please also offer some evidence to support your claim. - TPTB ( talk) 12:14, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
It seams that I can't post links, so enter UEFA's site (be it UCL or UEL) and have a look where the history is. That team from Liga IV isn't organised as the ex champion of europe (1986) by any national or international federation (FRF, LPF or UEFA).
The lawsuit between CSA and FCSB is only about the brand, not the trophies, not the history and surely not about the sport identity.
1. The court's decision was only for the brand 2. All the Football Federations recognize FCSB as Steaua's successor 3. The majority of people know that FCSB is the real FC Steaua. I mean there are only 2000-3000 people from the ex Steaua ULTRAS who betrayed the team for personal interests VS millions of people who support the team from Liga 1.
So Legal, Social and by the Football federations, FCSB is the ex-FC Steaua!
PS: What really happened! In the comunist era, each fotbal team was owned be a minister, company or a state force. FC Steaua was owned by the army (Ministry of Defence). This is something that I think you know already.
But in 1998 the Army gave the fotbal team up to a non-profit association because of UEFA rule implementations (no departmental team was allowed in the European competitions). Then by 2003 the team collected many depths and was nearly declared bankrupt by the court. But in 2003 the team was reorganized as an action based society, Becali bought the majority of the stock and become the owner of the team. There is nothing illegal with that!
So the page has so much bull**** information......
AntonescuFCSB47 ( talk) 12:51, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
AHA it is clear for me now, Never trust this begging for money site with untrained and lazy admins/ editors.
I really consider you a stupid person. I said already that the court's decision was only for the brand Doesn't matter even if this deceiving page exists, people will still know that the real Steaua is in LIGA 1!
AntonescuFCSB47 ( talk) 15:16, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from
FC Steaua București to
CSA Steaua București (football) (your addition has since been removed). 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. 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. If you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at
Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. —
Diannaa 🍁 (
talk) 15:38, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
You are mistaken. The page
FC Steaua București is in fact a fake page, with false information, that is not backed by any real evidence. That particular team, called Fotbal Club Fcsb, has used the Steaua brand illegally. Judges in Romania have ruled that it should change its name immediately and stop using the Steaua Brand. -
TPTB (
talk) 20:17, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
I will report you to an administrator, you are adding fake information to that page! 8Dodo8 ( talk · contribs) 11:01, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
You may be
blocked from editing without further warning the next time you
vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at
FC Steaua București.
Giant
Snowman 11:09, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Please refrain from abusing
warning or blocking templates, as you did to
User talk:8Dodo8. Doing so is a violation of
Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. 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. Thank you.
Pkbwcgs (
talk) 12:05, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for making a report on
Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and
all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, it appears that the editor you reported may not have engaged in
vandalism, or the user was not sufficiently or appropriately
warned. Please note there is a difference between
vandalism and unhelpful or misguided edits made in
good faith. If the user continues to vandalise after a recent final warning, please re-report it. Thank you.
Pkbwcgs (
talk) 12:09, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
You are mistaken. What he did was vandalism. Check the references to the article and you'll see that all the information added to that page was correct. He replaced the correct information with old, outdated information, to promote his own agenda. He is a supporter of a rival team and wants to vandalize the CSA Steaua București (football) page - TPTB ( talk) 14:52, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Boing! said Zebedee (
talk) 16:11, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
TPTB ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Decline reason:
You did indeed attack another user and posted a blatant attack on a living person in violation of WP:BLP. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 19:14, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I was blocked for reporting vandals and pointing out that they were in fact vandals. Just take a look at the edit history of the CSA Steaua București (football) and you will see that all the people that I have reported did nothing but vandalize that page. - TPTB ( talk) 17:42, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Please stop edit warring at {{ UEFA Champions League winners}}. You can discuss the matter at WT:FOOTY. SLBedit ( talk) 22:59, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Citeste Talk:CSA Steaua București (football)#RfC on this article's content si o sa vezi din nou ca adevaratul vandal esti tu. Asteptam decizia tribunalului in legatura cu palmaresul, pana atunci FCSB e Steaua. A fost confirmat si de un articol pe site-ul LPF, care avea statisticile din 1947 pana azi. Succes in Liga a 4-a! 8Dodo8 ( talk · contribs) 22:07, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.
Giant
Snowman 09:31, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
If you are connected to someone or something you have written about (a few examples are writing about yourself, your business, your band, a member of your family, your client) then you should be aware that Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline discourages you from writing about that subject. The main reason for that is that experience over the years indicates that editors with such a connection to a subject they are writing about are likely to find it very difficult, or even impossible, to stand back from their writing and see how it will look from the detached perspective of an outsider, so that they are likely to write in ways that look promotional to others, even if they sincerely think they are writing in a neutral way. Also, if your editing forms all or part of work for which you are paid, whether as an employee, as a contractor, or in any other capacity, the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use require you to state who is paying you, and what your connection to them is. The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 14:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Hello, TPTB. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
The file File:Logo of Commercial Property Executive.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Unused logo with no article used, it's also can't move to commons because of an unused logo will be deleted as of out of project scope.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
files for discussion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Willy1018 (
talk) 09:39, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Logo for the Right Alternative political party.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 13:22, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
tgeorgescu (
talk) 17:35, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Due to your Disruptive editing, tagging FCSB with a speedy delete, you have been blocked from that page. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 19:00, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
If you continue to edit disruptively in relation to this topic, I will seek a topic ban. Giant Snowman 12:59, 8 June 2024 (UTC)