User talk:CristiCristii

It is not a definitive decision, since there is an appeal judged. So far CSA only owns the name of Steaua (that is definitive). Your place is not on Wikipedia if you don't understand things of law!

"CSA Steaua a câștigat procesul pentru palmares cu Gigi Becali. Tribunalul București a stabilit că palmaresul din perioada 1947 - 2003 aparține CSA Steaua. Decizia nu este definitivă"

A mai fost discutata problema pe Wikipedia, momentan CSA detine doar numele nu si palmaresul. Pentru ca palmaresul sa le apartina lor de drept, e nevoie ca decizia sa devina definitiva. Clubul FCSB ataca decizia la ultimele instante acum. Daca totul va fi irevocabil, FCSB va pierde si palmaresul 1947-2003. Daca un om este condamnat la moarte la primele instante, nu inseamna neaparat ca decizia se va mentine. CSA Steaua e in curs de a isi recupera si palmaresul 1947-2003. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2F0F:301A:E400:2583:4125:14B5:DC1 (talk) 14:35, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pai si daca fcsb a pierdut dreptul la numele Steaua Bucuresti si la marca pe care a inregistrat-o ilegal la osim, cum poti sa spui ca palmaresul este la ei? Iar rocesul ala nu este in niciun caz pentru atribuirea palmaresului uneia dintre echipe, Steaua sau fcsb, e pentru recunoasterea lui. Daca s-a dovedit in instanta ca Becali si-a infiintat un club nou care a folosit ilegal marca Steaua si a pierdut peste 25 de procese chiar crezi ca are vreo sansa sa castige procesul asta pentru recunoasterea palmaresului? Nu am mai pomenit in nicio tara normala sa se mai intample un asa furt de identitate. --CristiCristii (talk) 10:31, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pai acum se judeca pentru palmares, dovada ca inainte s-au judecat pentru nume. Ti-ai dat raspunsul singur. Nu cred, sansele ca Becali sa castige sunt foarte mici. Probabil ca a luat clubul de fotbal cu japca. Am auzit ca urmatorul termen e 16 noiembrie anul acesta. Si mai e ceva, UEFA, FRF si LPF trebuie sa recunoasca palmaresul pentru CSA. Momentan toti spun ca e la FCSB. Sunt etape care trebuie sa se parcurga, poti citi pagina si discutiile ce au avut loc. Se asteapta finalul conflictului si al judecatii, si atunci se va modifica. Inca ceva, CSA-ul nu detine oficial palmaresul chiar daca unii baieti il trec pe pagina. E anevoios, pentru ca pe langa instante mai sunt si forurile, desi nu vad cum ar putea ignora deciziile definitive. Dar momentan singura decizie pusa in aplicare e cea referitoare la nume. Dovada ca echipa lui Becali s-a transformat in FCSB. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2F0F:301A:E400:91F3:9399:A97E:4FBC (talk) 11:17, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Inca o data iti spun, nu se judeca pentru palmares, se judeca pentru recunoasterea palmaresului. Cum si la faza despre nume nu s-a judecat cine are si cine nu dreptul de a folosi numele, a fost mai exact pentru anularea marcii FC Steaua Bucuresti inregistrata ilegal la osim. UEFA nu are ce sa recunoasca, UEFA spune doar ce ii este transmis de frf, si presupun ca stim toti cum e frf si chiar si lpf. Totusi, dupa ce s-a dovedit in instanta ca fcsb nu e Steaua este absurd sa spui ca palmaresul este la el :))). --CristiCristii (talk) 16:02, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Momentan pentru UEFA, FRF si LPF, FCSB are palmaresul. Asta e punct fix si a mai fost discutat pe Wikipedia. Apreciez daca o lasam asa pana cand se va produce. Aceasta o va rezolva Talpan, dar nu e ok sa mintim. Acelasi palmares nu poate exista la doua echipe, deci va fi rezolvat. Tu faci presupuneri, de genul ca FRF protejeaza FCSB si pe Wikipedia speculatiile nu isi au locul. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2F0F:301A:E400:7826:C706:76A9:5CD1 (talk) 23:01, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Advice on the situation regarding your editing in relation to Wikipedia policy

I neither know nor care what the legal position may eventually be decided to be; that is a matter for the parties concerned, their lawyers, and the Romanian courts, not for Wikipedia. However I do know the following, which are matters of Wikipedia policy.

Wikipedia reports what has been done, whether it has been done legally or illegally. To remove content about what an organisation has done on the grounds that they did it illegally is unacceptable, whether or not it is true that it was done illegally.
Repeatedly changing content of an article back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree, known as edit-warring, is considered unconstructive, and Wikipedia policy doesn't allow it. 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. Editors who continue to engage in edit-warring once they are aware of the policy may be blocked from editing.

Do not edit war even if you believe you are right. In most edit-wars everybody involved thinks they are right, so believing one is right does not confer exemption from the policy on edit-warring.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes, and work towards trying to reach consensus among editors.

JBW (talk) 18:49, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

English Wikipedia

Please note that this is the English language Wikipedia, and all contributions should be in English. Naturally I understand that if you are a native speaker of Romanian addressing another native speaker of Romanian then using Romanian is easier and more natural, but on Wikipedia there is no such thing as a private conversation. Even if your remarks are addressed to one person, other editors should be able to know what you are saying, and so you should use English when writing in the English Wikipedia. Naturally it would be a different matter if your were writing in Romanian Wikipedia. JBW (talk) 21:15, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]