User talk:Dante4786/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

January 2019

Your recent editing history at FCSB shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—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, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Hhkohh (talk) 01:10, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm already doing what you said... But please, do read what I wrote on FCSB's talk page. The way in which FCSB's page is written (especially in comparison to CSA Steaua București (football)) is completely unfair and biased. Dante4786 (talk) 01:37, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

wikipedia did not receive your order to do thing. Please ask for comment in a discussion thread and respect that consensus, even you did not agree. Matthew hk (talk) 03:57, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

No offence, but either your english is a little bad (my english isn't great either) or you got things a bit wrong. I did not order anybody to do anything. I'm just pointing out that FCSB & CSA Steaua București (football) are not treated in the same manner. CSA Steaua București (football)'s page has the club's full name displayed EVERYWHERE. In the title, in the infobox and in the beginning of the introduction. That's not the case for FCSB's page. How is this fair ? Dante4786 (talk) 16:35, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Dante4786, I have already seen these edit summary and discussion before you reply here. If necessary, I will leave comments there Hhkohh (talk) 10:31, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Hhkohh, So you read the talk page. Good ! Please explain me why FCSB & CSA Steaua București (football) are treated differently. Everybody keeps talking about the ,,consensus", but nobody is addressing the problem which I mentiond. Dante4786 (talk) 16:35, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Dante4786, again, If I have some my comments and find this is a problem, I will comment on talk page. No worries! And no need to mention me here. Hhkohh (talk) 16:39, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

One last time. You remove the former name of FCSB, Steaua București, from the lead, it is against consensus . This is your final warning, your explanation of unfair did not make any sense. If you even remove Steaua București from the lead of FCSB again, i will report you to WP:AIV to warrant a block. Thank you. Matthew hk (talk) 17:08, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

No, my explanation of how things are unfair made perfect sense. It's not my fault you keep insisting on ignoring the truth. And unlike Hhkohh, who tried to help me, all you did was threaten me for no real reason at all. I haven't changed a thing even before Hhkohh warned me here, but you keep threatening me with reports. What's even the point of you geting involved, since I already did what Hhkohh was asking me ? Dante4786 (talk) 17:51, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Dante4786, I did not help you. Hhkohh (talk) 17:53, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I mean you helped by providing me with the link about requesting moves. I want things do be done right. I don't want to spam edits. That's what I meant. Dante4786 (talk) 17:58, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Dante4786, we usually discuss before changing controversial content. Matt is right and he did not threaten you in my view. Hhkohh (talk) 18:01, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

There was no point in him getting involved. There was no point in him warning me, after you already did the same thing and especially after I already stopped editing. He kept repeating the same thing as if I was vandalising Fcsb's article, which I wasn't. Dante4786 (talk) 18:14, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Did you see there is a big red icon in your talk page. That usually means final or serious warning. Please read WP:3RR. Matthew hk (talk) 11:26, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

But did YOU see my response after Hhkohh's warning ? The warning was posted on 01:10, 20 January 2019 (UTC). I stopped making modifications to the article EVEN BEFORE the warning was written. Stop implying something else ! If I did something against the rules, it was because I didn't know about them. As soon as Hhkohh clarified that, I stopped with the modifications. Dante4786 (talk) 09:19, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, then, if you wish to do so, respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dante4786. Thank you. Matthew hk (talk) 01:30, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Yeah...

OK, so I wanted to clarify something. Yes, I am a Steaua fan, among million others in this country, and as long as I've seen on your history, you're a Steaua fan too, but you're supporting CSA. So, according to your message you should accept too that this nonsense 'war' between CSA and Becali's club isn't over and there are going to be a lot of disputes. I am open minded and I ask you to be the same, even though I'm supporting FCSB, I don't have any aphaty for CSA, I do even support the other sports departments. I just needed to let you know. Thanks for reading. Cip_Ri (talk) 13:12, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

I am a fan of Steaua. But that does not make me act irationaly. I am simply stating the facts and I only made the necessary changes. I could have changed even more, like the nickname, the fact that Fcsb isn't an acronym and so forth. But these are debatable. I could have deleted the whole ,,history" section (seeing as this no longer has anything to do with FCSB), but I did not, because people need to have a point of orientation when reading about Steaua vs Fcsb. But of course, several changes should be made further. Dante4786 (talk) 15:08, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Ciprian, e ca si in cazul numelui! Preluarea se face numai in momentul in care CSA castiga si la Curtea de Apel si FRF / LPF recunosc hotararea instantei. Inca ceva, daca CSA castiga la Curtea de Apel si decizia devine definitiva (irevocabil nu mai exista in noul cod civil) si FRF nu recunoaste hotararea instantei de exemplu, nici atunci nu se transmite palmaresul. Atunci ar mai fi un proces, intre CSA si FRF. Se poate intampla si asa desi nu cred. desi aici vorbim de un aspect delicat (palmares si continuitate, nu doar nume). Deci daca se intampla 2 LUCRURI: decizia definitiva a Curtii de Apel + punerea in aplicare de catre FRF, atunci modificam ca nu se opune nimeni justitiei (dreptatii). Yellow-sulphur-rose (talk) 17:12, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Salut

Momentan palmaresul n-a fost transmis catre CSA, intrucat conform normelor dreptului abia la Curtea de Apel decizia va fi definitiva. Mentionez si ca dupa ultimul cod, o decizie definitiva nu mai este si irevocabila. Acum ceva important, abia dupa hotararea instantei de la Curtea de Apel devine executorie, doar ca in drept scrie "poate fi". Deci conteaza mult daca FRF / UEFA transmit palmaresul catre CSA si invers, FCSB il pierde. Abia atunci putem modifica. Altfel daca FRF / LPF nu pun in aplicare o eventual hotarare a instantei de la Curtea de Apel, CSA si Talpan ii vor da in judecata. Si atunci iar se va judeca. Desi nu cred ca va fi cazul. Dar ca la noi la nimeni. De exemplu NUMELE, numele a fost pierdut complet. Si l-am modificat abia dupa ce si FRF a agreat hotararea Curtii de Apel. Yellow-sulphur-rose (talk) 16:35, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Eu atat zic. Dau un ,,search" cu ,,Steaua" pe pagina FCSB, si imi apar 165 de rezultate. Nu e deloc cum spui tu. Si cand am invocat hotararea cu nume, am fost trimis la plimbare, ca cica nu e sursa buna pt wikipedia. Ca trebuie altceva. Nu merge cu dubla masura... Dante4786 (talk) 15:56, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Nu e nici o dubla masura, FCSB face apel la Curtea de Apel. Stii cum functioneaza hotararile in civil sau nu? Nu vine nimeni sa iti ia casa pana nu exista o decizie definitiva. Si chiar si atunci vorbim de pasul executoriu, trebuie sa fie pusa in aplicare pentru ca ea sa produca efecte. Sigur ca editam in viitor daca se intampla, te voi si ajuta sa o faci. Dar pentru ca palmaresul sa fie transmis trebuie 2 lucruri se intample: 1. CSA sa castige si la Curtea de Apel. 2. FRF / LPF sa puna in aplicare hotararea instantei. Asa cum s-a intamplat si in cazul numelui, cand FRF / LPF a recunoscut hotararea. Acum intelegi? Nu tine de ce zice vreun jurnalist, tine de drept si de forurile fotbalistice care trebuie sa aplice decizia. Decizia momentan nu are cum sa fie pusa in aplicare, intrucat ea nu e definitiva. Yellow-sulphur-rose (talk) 17:05, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Inca ceva, momentan nici pe pagina CSA-ului nu ar trebui sa adaugi palmaresul. S-au mai vazut rasturnari la Curtea de Apel. Yellow-sulphur-rose (talk) 17:05, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Nu stiu unde erai acum 1 an, cand mi se spunea ca hotararile judecatoresti nu sunt surse bune pt wikipedia, ca trebuie altceva. Ok, am modificat la nume, unde e definitiv, sper sa schimbi si asta.Dante4786 (talk) 16:13, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Pentru nume am sters deja dar s-a ajuns la un consens. Dar tu ai modificat cum ca FCSB nu mai e continuitoarea, adica tot cum vrei tu faci. Continuare = palmares! Ti-am zis sa astepti putin, pentru ca vom modifica cand va exista decizia definitiva si agreata de FRF. Citesti ce ti-a scris toata lumea sau nu? Yellow-sulphur-rose (talk) 17:16, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Inca o tampenie pe care o faci. Pana in anul 2017, clubul s-a numit Steaua, deci nu e nicio problema sa ii spui Steaua! Pentru ca asa a figurat la FRF / LPF si UEFA. Yellow-sulphur-rose (talk) 17:18, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Consens ca ce ? Ca hotararile definitive merg invocate doar la palmares ? De ce nu merg si la nume ? Iar editul 2 a fost pentru utilizarea numelui Steaua dupa 2003. E hotarare definitiva pe asa ceva. Ai dat undone si la faptul ca am editat ,,Becali este patron la FCSB" in loc de ,,Becali este patron la Steaua". Dante4786 (talk) 16:24, 8 July 2019 (UTC)Wtf. Fii corect !

Pai nu se mai numeste Steaua, dar pana la Martie 2017 clubul s-a numit Steaua. Ce nu intelegi? E ca si in presa, doar nu s-or apuca Gazeta Sporturilor si Prosport sa modifice toate titlurile si articolele cu Steaua. Din Martie 2017, nu mai e voie sa ne referim la FCSB ca Steaua. Iar SHORT NAME, e tot NICKNAME. Ala e nume neoficial. Si pe CSA Steaua poti sa o strigi Dinamo neoficial, ca nu contravine. Yellow-sulphur-rose (talk) 17:26, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Cum sa fie short name tot nickname, daca sunt pe randuri diferite ? Sunt efective 2 chestii separate. Cum poti sa ma minti asa pe fata ? Iar wikipedia nu e un site de sport, e enciclopedie virtuala care se actualizeaza constant. Si numind-o pe Fcsb cu ,,Steaua", chiar si la timpul trecut, nu mai reflecta realitatea.Dante4786 (talk) 16:31, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Nu exista SHORT NAME la UEFA si nici la FRF. E pur si simplu o porecla pusa de vointa majoritatii. Ce nu intelegi? La fel, a fost numita Steaua in trecut, nu poti nici asta sa interzici. Si inainte de martie 2017, in toate celelalte sezoane, in Europa a jucat Steaua Bucuresti ca actuala FCSB. Iar nu poti sa interzici. Yellow-sulphur-rose (talk) 17:33, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Lasa UEFA, ca nu vorbim de UEFA aici. Pe siteul wikipedia e clar. Short Name si Nickname sunt 2 chestii diferite. Nu e redundant sa pui si una si alta, daca inseamna aceeasi chestie ? Pe cine crezi ca pacalesti ?Dante4786 (talk) 16:35, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Pai nu eu am pus. Scoate Steaua acolo daca vrei, ca sa nu se creada altceva. Yellow-sulphur-rose (talk) 17:37, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Ok.Dante4786 (talk) 16:39, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Trebuie scrisa cumva in mod obiectiv, nu sa sune cum ca FCSB a pierdut palmaresul. Scrie ca CSA a castigat primul proces in legatura cu palmaresul. Si ca decizia nu e inca definitiva si executorie, plus ca FCSB a contestat-o la Curtea de Apel. Asa trebuie scris. Si ti-am zis, cand nu vor mai avea palmaresul, atunci putem sa scoatem eventual si poreclele fostilor jucatori. Yellow-sulphur-rose (talk) 17:54, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Nici nu poate fi order, ca e doar o decizie neexecutorie. Pe langa asta, sa o puna in aplicare va trebuie FRF. E court decision. Lasa ca o scriu eu daca vrei? Yellow-sulphur-rose (talk) 17:56, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Pai a pierdut palmaresul. Ca a pierdut procesul. Doar ca decizia inca nu este pusa in executare, ca nu e definitiva. Si de unde stii ca FCSB a contestat-o la Curtea de Apel ? Nu scrie nicaieri asta, sunt doar presupunerile tale. Bine, scrie sa vad si poate modific dupa. O sa intru mai tarziu sa vad.Dante4786 (talk) 16:58, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

FCSB contesta la Curtea de Apel. Doi la mana, pentru ca palmaresul sa fie transferat, trebuie sa se intample ce s-a intamplat si ultima data. Sa aiba o decizie de la Curtea de Apel si sa FRF-ul sa o puna in aplicare. Wikipedia nu e despre forul judecatoresc, ci despre forul sportiv. La fel si cluburile acestea. Eu sunt om corect, dovada ca am scris ce ai adaugat dar sub forma neutra. Aici nu suntem marxisti. Ce e facts, eu ma inclin. Uite cum am zis: On 5 July 2019, CSA Steaua won a first court decision claiming the record dispute.[70] However, the decision is not yet executory. Yellow-sulphur-rose (talk) 18:05, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

July 2019

Your recent editing history at FCSB shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—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, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Yellow-sulphur-rose (talk) 16:54, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:SteauaCrests.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:SteauaCrests.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F6 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:SteauaCrests.png

Thank you for uploading File:SteauaCrests.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:SteauaCrests.png

A tag has been placed on File:SteauaCrests.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free file with a clearly invalid licensing tag; or it otherwise fails some part of the non-free content criteria. If you can find a valid tag that expresses why the file can be used under the fair use guidelines, please replace the current tag with that tag. If no such tag exists, please add the {{Non-free fair use}} tag, along with a brief explanation of why this constitutes fair use of the file. If the file has been deleted, you can re-upload it, but please ensure you place the correct tag on it.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Matthew hk (talk) 10:53, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I was busy and I'm not an expert on wikipedia. I thought I was pretty clear about the picture. The picture was made by me, but the crests belong to CSA Steaua. I don't know how else to put it. You see, I tried to post the history of the crest. Something like on the Real Madrid page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_Madrid_CF English is not my native language and I don't have time to read all the rules. Can you maybe repost the picture, with the correct tag ? I understand this is the problem, I tried to explain the situation in the description box, but apparently it wasn't enough.Dante4786 (talk) 16:37, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

The sport club owned the copyrights of the logos (total of 8), you did not own the copyright even you put the 8 logos on the same PNG file. Also please read WP:NFC for fair use on the historical logo. Matthew hk (talk) 16:55, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I know that I don't own the copyright. I said in the description box, I made the picture but all rights go to the sports club. My intent wasn't to take any credit. I simply wanted to add a picture regarding the evolution of the crest. On the upload page, wiki gave me some options, I chose (in a hurry, that's true) the one about logos. This being said, can you please advise me what tag should I chose the next time I upload it ?Dante4786 (talk) 17:28, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I will read your link, but I'm afraid I will make the same mistake.Dante4786 (talk) 17:30, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

FYI, the historical logos of Real Madrid are uploaded to wiki-commons as uploader believed they are simple shape enough to not eligible to copyright and eligible to public domain. However, i doubt the logos are actually "simple shape", as well as the historical logos of Steaua are eligible to wiki-commons or not. Matthew hk (talk) 17:39, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I read about wiki-commons before I uploaded the picture. But it clearly says there that "We can't accept works created or inspired by others. THIS INCLUDES MATERIAL SUCH AS: LOGOS (...)" https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:UploadWizard So, because my picture was about logos, I thought wiki-commons was not the right method to upload the picture.Dante4786 (talk) 17:45, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

FCSB

I’ll write in English because that’s how we are obliged here. I saw that you mentioned me on FCSB’s page. As I said, I wish that the pages looked more alike, so I added the SCs and SAs to CFR’s page too.

As I suggested at first, this is irrelevant to non-Romanian readers, and also is hard to find the full firm names of other clubs. For example, I couldn’t find the one of Craiova, and we can’t assume they are all SAs. And even if they would be, that would make the addition of the SCs and SAs even more pointless.

Regarding the former name, I think that it is relevant in order for readers to find the “old Steaua”. Or at least put “Steaua” as a simple name, it doesn’t have to be official or legal. And also the note, which I see that it disappared also explained the situation a little more and it has to be brought back.

Lastly, we shouldn’t refer to the club as FC FCSB in the article. It’s not our fault that it sounds stupid, but please just leave it FCSB. That’s why the title is FCSB instead of FC FCSB, simpy because it’s stupid.

I am no FCSB or CSA fan, so I can’t check out the article so often. I am getting pissed for seeing the intri being modified all the time. This things should be discussed in the talk page to with the admins to get to a consensus, otherwise we might get banned for getting into edit warring.

Thanks, 8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 16:56, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

"This is irrelevant to non-Romanian readers". I disagree. For example, I watch Serie A and I'm not italian (this is how I knew about Inter :p) But I do appreciate that I can find the full name of the italian teams. I don't have to search for them on italian sites. Anyway, this is very subjective. Information by definiton is objective. We should focus on this. And yes, not all Romanian clubs are SCs/SAs.

Regarding FCSB's old name... By all means, do write it's former name. But in the body of the article, not at the beginning, not the very first words. At the beginning should be only current information, like those on other pages. And I believe there is already at least one section discussing the Steaua vs FCSB conflict. Even the introduction section talks about the club's former name.

We should use the semi full name "FC FCSB" when we use the semi full name of other clubs. For example:

FCSB - STEAUA - MILAN (short names)

FC FCSB - CSA STEAUA - AC MILAN (semi-full names)

SC Football Club FCSB SA - Clubul Sportiv al Armatei Steaua Bucuresti - Associazione Calcio Milan S.p.A (full names)

And yes, I don't agree with the title only being "FCSB". We should present information as it is, without any subjective input

Btw, after somebody else edited the article, I even restored the information you put (even though I might not agree with it being there) Dante4786 (talk) 17:37, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

My apologies for the late response, I was in vacation and also did not see any notification (you should respond to messages on my talk page, not here). Yeah, the intro mentioning the old name wasn't added by me, since you don't see that at any other team but we were just used to it. It's better to be removed.

I stringly oppose using FC FCSB ever. The only place I've seen that is on very, very formal LPF decisions. Not even formal articles or pages ever use FC FCSB. And after all, it's Inter Milan, FC Inter Milan. The short name can prevail sometimes. A familiar example is CFR Cluj, which neither has thr FC in the title.

Thanks for restoring that. I might take more looks on the FCSB article when I have time, but users keep modifyinh the page and since I am not a fan of this club it feels like torture. The admins should find a consensus and more edit restrictions.8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 00:10, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Stadioane

Salut,

La noi s-a mers pe o politica, si politica a fost aceea de stadioane si sali in limba romana. Altfel sa le tot schimbi, e mult prea greu. Unele nici nu le poti schimba fara ajutorul administratorilor pentru ca au existat prea mult schimbari anterioare. Spaniolii le au pe majoritatea in limba spaniola, iar celelalte sunt in limba engleza. Arena Națională, Stadionul Ion Oblemenco sau Stadionul Dr. Constantin Rădulescu. Tu cum zici ca ar fi mai bine? Ele oricum si cand scrii X Stadium conduc la stadionul romanesc. Pana la urma ce e aia Arena Polivalentă aka Multipurpose Arena? Suna ca naiba pentru vorbitorii de engleza! Asta ar insemna sa le schimbam in engleza, iar Arena Nationala sa fiu National Stadium (Bucharest). Nu arata ca dracu'? Daca te uiti la italieni, unde nu e Estadio ci Stadio, cred ca toate la Serie A sunt STADIO! Rostadia2012 (talk) 15:31, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Iar stadionul din Sibiu momentan l-am redenumit in engleza din alte cauze. Cand se va finaliza le voi reface prin administratori. Rostadia2012 (talk) 15:32, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Nu-i frumos sa ma injuri dincolo, in engleza. Doi, mi se pare ca suna ca naiba ,,the stadionul". E romgleza si il articulezi de 2 ori. Numele stadionului e ,,Steaua". Si traducem doar ,,stadionul" pentru ca e substantiv comun in cazul de fata. Propunerea mea ar fi sa ramana titlul in romana, asa cum e si acum, iar inceputul sa fie in engleza (cu traducerea in limba romana, imediat dupa). Iar ,,Arena Nationala" se traduce cu ,,National Arena". De fapt, majoritatea asa i-au si spus la inceput, inclusiv in Romania. Pronuntau ,,Național Arena". Foloseau numele in engleza, dar il pronuntau in limba romana. ,,National" in engleza nu se pronunta ,,național"Dante4786 (talk) 17:32, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Unde te-am injurat in engleza? Pai asa se zice in engleza cand folosesti un nume romanesc gen Stadionul Steaua, trebuie sa mai folosesti The pentru a se articula in engleza. Omule, sunt 100 de stadioane National Arena! Si la Arena Polivalentă s-ar traduce Multipurpose Arena. Vrei sa le vezi pe toate cu (Bucharest) pe langa ele? National Arena (Bucharest) si Multipurpose Arena (Bucharest)? Si stii cum suna pentru un un vorbitor de engleza titlu cu National Arena sau "Multipurpose Arena"? Hilar! Citesti macar ce iti dau? San Siro? Vezi undeva traducere in italiana? Iar daca vrei titlu in engleza, trebuie sa mut sute de titluri din romana in engleza. [Stadioanele din Serie A au titlurile aproape toate in italia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020%E2%80%9321_Serie_A]. Dar unde vezi tu pus STADIUM la "stadio"? Nu se presupune ca daca Stadio sau Stadionul is a stadium, e stadium? Nici nu vrei sa spui putin, trebuie sa te mai potolesti daca esti tanar. Poftim model Stadio Artemio Franchi. Rostadia2012 (talk) 23:22, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

O chestie pe care o faci gresit si e FALS

Tu ai modificat la Panduru si altii? Vezi ca nu exista o decizie definitiva impotriva echipei lui Becali! Palmaresul nu e inca la CSA. Nu se supara nimeni sa-l treci la CSA, dar la jucatori nu ar trebui modificat. Faci o mare greseala! Continuatoarea tine de palmares, nu de nume, cu aia se identifica clubul. Deci lasa FCSB dar scris Steaua in cazul lor, sau fa un redirect catre FCSB. E o mare, mare greseala. Tu practic dai deja decizia in cazul procesului! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rostadia2012 (talk • contribs) 07:13, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Nu se supara nimeni sa-l treci la CSA, dar la jucatori nu ar trebui modificat. ??? Cat despre Panduru, el a jucat la Steaua. Fizic, trofeele sunt la Steaua. Dante4786 (talk) 13:07, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:53, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Gender-related editing

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Just making sure you've seen the notice. Let me know if you have any questions. Newimpartial (talk) 18:09, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I had nothing to do with your block, but I did try to warn you. If you want to continue this discussion at this user talk page, I am open to that. Newimpartial (talk) 18:35, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

AND I COMPLIED. You said "no pronouns". I edited my text. And my reply still got deleted. How is this fair? How is this not censorship? Continue where? You gave a link to "Talk:Elliot Page: Difference between revisions". I am banned on that talk section. Dante4786 (talk)

I suspect Newimpartial means your user-talk page that is still wide-open, not the article-talk page from which you are blocked. DMacks (talk) 18:43, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Exactly, DMacks. And to Dante: I am not an admin and am clearly more moderate on Talk page policing than many admins are. I get that it feels unfair that you submit your issue without misgendering and still get banned from the page, but that Talk page has been heavily trolled and some admin take a hard line on NOFORUM posting. And as I say, your Talk page is in any case the most appropriate forum for the questions you were raising over there. Newimpartial (talk) 18:48, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Also, Dante, it looks like your unblock request is addressed to me, but I am not an admin. Maybe withdraw it and reformulate it when your feelings are less intense; I have never seen an unblock request written on cortisol achieve its intended effect. Newimpartial (talk) 18:52, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

This is not the same. That was a public debate. This is just between us. Only we can see the replies. This is not helpful. And I'm sorry to say it, but this really is censorship. You guys act like you are afraid of what people might see. Afraid of a debate. Jesus... I thought wikipedia was better than this. Free speech and all of that. This feels like Orwell's 1984. What is even the point on making an unblock request. I already know the answer Dante4786 (talk)

You may not realize this, but anyone on Wikipedia can see your Talk page. Let me try to spell out the issues for you, because there are layers.

1) since at least 2015, Wikipedia has had a clear behavioural norm among editors not to misgender BLP subjects (or other editors) in Talk pages or edits. I have seen several editors blocked by Admin or banned by community consensus for refusing to observe this CIVIL requirement.

2) around the same time, Wikipedia developed MOS:GENDERID that all articles about trans people are supposed to follow, when it comes to pronouns, etc.

3) Quite apart from that, we have WP:NOTFORUM - raising out of the blue questions about the general context of an article (like what pronouns to use when people self-declare he/they pronouns) is not really on-topic for a BLP Talk page.

1) is very clearly not censorship any more than other CIVIL rules are censorship. You might feel that 2) and 3) represent censorship, but neither actually does: 2) represents a community decision about style and content, and 3) is to keep individual Talk pages manageable. Neither has anything to do with the limits of acceptable thought or what opinions (no matter how literally ignorant) you can express on WP: just not on article pages and not just anywhere you feel moved. Also, you can't break behavioural norms while doing so without expecting to be blocked. And reverting twice in 15 minutes on a DS topic, as you did, is already a WP:EW violation apart from anything else. Newimpartial (talk) 19:08, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Misgendering? If you are born as X, you are a X. It doesn't matter what you think. You might think you are a Y. You are not. You can't change this. Maybe in a 1000 years. As I said, bone structure, DNA, all of that. Wikipedia is about facts, not opinions. You can not change the way you are born. We don't live in a cyberpunk world. This is not fantasy, this is real life. And resorting to censorship won't help anybody's cause.

And regarding WP:NOTFORUM, I don't think I went offtopic. I talked on the subject. Nothing more, nothing less. When somebody made a complaint, I complied. And my text still got removed. This is censorship. And it doesn't matter that we can talk freely here. I'm nobody. This page doesn't matter. Nobody is searching for this page.

And I respected The three-revert rule. I made just 2 reverts (on DIFFERENT texts). Because, for the last time, I complied to your request regarding the pronouns. Dante4786 (talk)

If you are born as X, you are a X. When it comes to gender, there aren't reliable sources supporting your statement; if you read the article gender identity you will have a reasonable idea what the reliable sources say.

And on WP (and in many real-world places, like most universities and such countries as Canada) you are expected to use pronouns that people have chosen to reflect their gender identity. It is impolite not to do so in speech or chat, and it is misinformation to do so in print.

Those two paragraphs give you the facts on this issue. You can pretend all you want that pronouns are based on anatomy or chromosomes, but in the real world they never were. If you don't recognize this and think biographies should be emphasizing their subjects' bone structure (about which we know little) and their DNA (about which we generally know nothing at all), then I'm afraid you are the one living in fantasy. Wikipedia is a project based on reliable sources in the real world, not the one you imagine. Newimpartial (talk) 19:50, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

When it comes to gender, there aren't reliable sources supporting your statement Mate, this is literally kindergarten stuff. You learn about this as soon as you learn to talk. Or when you realise who mom and dad are. It's that simple. Unless you are a hermaphrodite, things are not that complicated.

You are expected to use the correct NAME that people have. That's it. Their legal name. Anything else is PC madness. If you want to believe you are a man today, a woman tomorrow, and a flying purple alien the day after tomorrow, that's fine with me. But you can't expect other people to indulge in your delusions. If you have blonde hair, you have blonde hair. You can't expect other people to see your hair as being brown.

And scientist do know a lot of stuff about bone structure. Why do you think men can't fight women in MMA competitions?

Just to clarify things, when I say "you", I don't actually mean you. I'm talking about people in general. Dante4786 (talk) 20:10, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

You clearly do not understand the difference between sex and gender - which kids these days actually do learn in kindergarten - and probably haven't even read our article on gender, much less gender identity, much less read the reliable sources themselves. Knowitallness is the most powerful buttress to ignorance there is, and you clearly are NOTHERE to learn. Just don't try to edit (or advise editors) on subjects where you lack basic competence. Also, I'd advise you not to move to a jurisdiction (like Canada) or work in a context (like post-secondary education) where acting on your assumptions about pronouns could get you in legal trouble or fired. Newimpartial (talk) 22:04, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Just because there is an article on wikipedia (or the internet) doesn't make it automatically true. Case in point: The article on Ellen Page. And why am I not surprised that you chose an ad hominem argument? Dante4786 (talk) 22:55, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

• Having just collapsed the thread as NOTFORUM, I would note that the post was not related to our coverage of the subject. Talk pages are for discussing improvements to an article. Discussing the subject itself merely to debate it is considered NOTFORUM. You provided no reliable sources for the issue you were discussing, and merely seemed to be trying to get a rise out of other editors. That is not productive. If you really think trans folks don't exist, then I challenge you to find a scientific journal review paper published in a top notch, non-predatory journal, that says as much. If you can't find such a publication, then Wikipedia (who relies on such quality sources) cannot say it either. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:17, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I tried to discuss the subject because wikipedia should show facts, not opinions. I was quickly reproved, censored and banned. This is not how free speech works.

You want source to what? You can't change your gender? Just so you can later labeled it as "predatory-journal"?

"and merely seemed to be trying to get a rise out of other editors." There is a rule on wikipedia about assuming good faith. Yet here you are, assuming the worst and completely ignoring how I did comply and change my statement after the first complaint.

"If you really think trans folks don't exist" I did not say that. Dante4786 (talk) 21:17, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

December 2020

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain pages (Elliot Page and Talk:Elliot Page) for abuse of editing privileges. You are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  – Muboshgu (talk) 18:27, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Dante4786 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

You wrote "and while you're at it, explain to me how a nonbinary person's bone structure is different from a cis person's" How can I explain anything, when you blocked me? If you really want to discuss, unblock me, so we can have a civilised debate Dante4786 (talk) 18:34, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:56, 4 December 2020 (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.

Hi

Like I said, FCSB has no decision against using the name in the past, only from the date of the decision in the future... If you want you can move it to FCSB in European Football, but we will keep FC Steaua Bucuresti for FCSB until the date of the decision! And only after will be FCSB. So 1986 is FCSB but named as FC Steaua Bucuresti. Everything what's under early 2017, there will be FC Steaua Bucuresti because there is no record decision. Don't complicate the things and show some goodwill even if you are a hater there is some logic! If we will have a decision, 1947-2003 will be linked to CSA Steaua Bucuresti.

Trebuie sa scriu in romana? Nici la jucatori nu modificati nimic, ce aveti dreptul sa modificati e numele clubului lui Becali care acum e FCSB. Din 2017 incolo puteti modifica si la jucatori, dar atat. Complicam lucrurile pe care nu le mai descurca nimeni in caz ca CSA-ul prin absurd nu primeste decizia. Plus ca informatiile astea fotbalistice sunt importante pentru atata lume le care voi nu va ganditi.

Pe langa asta, decizia judecatoreasca trebuie pusa in aplicare. Cum a fost pusa si cea anterioara. Mai ai putina rabdare ca se face lumina si in cazul palmaresului. Sa facem lucrurile corect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2F0F:3014:6500:21F2:947D:87E7:C727 (talk) 11:46, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello! The decision stated they NEVER had the right to use the name. And this is a final decision. Also, calling me a "hater" is against the wikipedia rules. You should assume good faith. And final note, as of december 2020, there is no club with the name "FC Steaua Bucuresti". Dante4786 (talk) 17:56, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of 2020–21 CSA Steaua București (football) season

The article 2020–21 CSA Steaua București (football) season has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:NSEASONS and WP:GNG.

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}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. HawkAussie (talk) 01:30, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of 2019–20 CSA Steaua București (football) season

The article 2019–20 CSA Steaua București (football) season has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS

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}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. HawkAussie (talk) 01:31, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of 2019–20 CSA Steaua București (football) season

The article 2019–20 CSA Steaua București (football) season has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

There would have to be something absolutely spectacular for this to warrant a stand-alone article and that's clearly not the case here... Any relevant info can easily be merged into the main article (if any)

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}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Spiderone 12:52, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of 2019–20 CSA Steaua București (football) season for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2019–20 CSA Steaua București (football) season 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019–20 CSA Steaua București (football) season until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article.

HawkAussie (talk) 23:34, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Liga III and Liga II

Hi Dante, if you believe that these are fully professional leagues, then please start a discussion at WT:FPL so that they can be added to our list of fully professional leagues at WP:FPL. Thanks Spiderone 21:48, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

It's not about believing. It's a fact. Sorry, but WikiProject is a bit out of my comfort zone. I never wrote there, I don't know how and at the moment I'm a little preoccupied with my articles getting erased. Maybe try Category:Professional sports leagues in Romania or: Romanian football league system. "The first three leagues are organized at a national level and consist of fully professional teams" - this is true. Dante4786 (talk) 00:05, 28 December 2020 (UTC)