User talk:TPTB

The Powers That Be

Incident notice

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)[reply]

Fake information

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The decision of a judicial court trumps something posted on a website. So far, UEFA has not issued a press release saying that it actually recognizes FC Fcsb as Steaua Bucharest. The fact that you use the name FC Steaua shows to me that you have no idea about anything whatsoever. The team FC Steaua never actually existed. The team who won the Uefa Champions League in 1986 was called CSA Steaua Bucharest - TPTB (talk) 13:02, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

That doesn't make it less of a copyright violation. It's simple to attribute it. If you are going to refuse to attribute material because you don't like it, you'll have to be blocked again as this is a policy we can't ignore. Doug Weller talk 16:35, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But it's not a copyright violation. In fact, the copyright violation is taking place on the FC Steaua Bucuresti page, since they are using information that clearly does not belong to them. All the information that I've added to the CSA Steaua București (football) page came with proper references and it was taken down because it showed that the FC Steaua Bucuresti page was fake. - TPTB (talk) 17:37, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is a copyright violation to copy from one article to another without attribution. You've been told that now by two Administrators, the licensing has been explained and you've been given a link to the appropriate page. If you do it again your opinion won't matter, you will probably be blocked, perhaps indefinitely if you don't agree to follow our copyright policy. It's not optional. Doug Weller talk 19:41, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not. That page is fake. It contains only fake information. The name of the owner is fake. The name of the team is fake. The name of the manager is fake. The honours, history, almost everything else is fake. That article was based on lies. And we now know for sure that the team called Fotbal Club Fcsb is not Steaua Bucharest. The new page is for the real Steaua Bucharest. It's going to have similar information to that posted in the Fotbal Club Fcsb page, but that's just because the latter was created with fake info in the first place. You people need to make up your minds. You either keep a page that lies to and misinforms people or you offer them clear and correct information. And for God's sake, the people editing that page even got the information wrong when copying it from Steaua. Until recently, the page said that their club was founded on July 7 1947. It was a lie, since their club was actually founded in 2003. But Steaua Bucharest was founded on June 7 1947. Those guys who edited the page did it wrong. Because they didn't really have any idea what they were doing. They were just looking to make fun of a Romanian football team, probably a rival. - TPTB (talk) 20:15, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let me make this a little clearer to all. The majority of information on the FCSB page was conceived, written, edited and published BY ME IN PERSON. Just browse through the page history back in about 2007, when the history, honours, stadium, colour information was first posted and you will see that it was me. If there IS any copyright claim on Wikipedia, that one should be mine alone - for that content to be deleted from the FCSB page. As creator of about 75% information from the FCSB page, from now on I will consider it in my own interest to protect it, so that it will only be used for the CSA Steaua page - a page whose accuracy of information was proved by its dozens of references, before its previous illegitimate protection. User:SupervladiTM 16:16, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, you can not insist that your writing is used only on the CSA Steaua page - by the very act of publishing it you have released it with a CC BY-SA 3.0 License, and that means anyone can copy it anywhere they wish providing they do it with proper attribution. The problem with TPTB's copying was not that it was not allowed, but simply that it was not properly attributed. On a related issue, if you Romanian football warriors don't stop attacking each other and start using Wikipedia's dispute resolution process (as described at WP:DR) I'm going to start blocking every one of you and protecting the article pages because of the utter timewaste you are causing when there really are far more important subjects for us to be spending our time on than Romanian football. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:14, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've read SuprevladiTM's post six times and I haven't yet found at least one attack directed to another user. Then agai, I didn't attack anyone either, but you still blocked me. So I'm curious. Are you just here to threaten us or does wikipedia have a different definition for "attack"? And if you want to threaten us and block us, that's fine. But did you even take a minute to read what SupervladiTM wrote? He created most of the FCSB page and he's now telling you that things have changed and that that page contains false information. Aren't you at least a little bit concerned with the stuff published here, on wikipedia? Don't you care if an article is false? Shouldn't you look to change this and make sure that the information published here is correct? I don't know what wikipedia admins do on this website, but if you're not here to make sure that the articles offer useful information, then why are you here? - TPTB (talk) 14:29, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to explain that administrators have no say whatsoever over the content of any article (content is decided by discussion leading to WP:Consensus), and we can only enforce Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes. You and the others involved in this dispute must use the procedures described at WP:DR, and if you refuse to do so and instead just keep making personal attacks on each other (and posting blatant violations of Wikpedia's WP:BLP policy) then there is little we can do other than to block you from editing - and I will not hesitate to do that if you do not stop fighting and start talking. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:45, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, who did I attack? I still don't get this. I'm accused of attacking someone, but I attacked no one as far as I know. However, if you take a look at this talk page, you can clearly see that other people have attacked me. Just scroll up a little and you'll see what the user AntonescuFCSB47 called me. He is one of the people who vandalised the CSA Steaua page, together with 8Dodo8 and all the others. Their edits are all visible in the history of the page. Yet no one has ever acted against them. No one has blocked or warned them. But I got blocked and I still don't know why . I don't mind that you blocked me. I don't really care. And I'm not mad. But I don't get why the CSA Steaua page is still not returned to its proper, correct version. The page is vandalized, you're keeping it like this and protecting the vandals. If there's really a procedure to this, then return the page to the proper version, wait for the discussion to end, and afterwards allow other people to vandalize it. But right now you just allowed vandals to trick you into protecting them and you also did their bidding. - TPTB (talk) 10:32, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reported

I will report you to an administrator, you are adding fake information to that page!8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 11:01, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

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)[reply]

October 2017

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for making personal attacks towards other editors and for violations of Wikipedia's WP:BLP policy. Once the block has expired, 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 ~~~~}}. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:11, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's a lie. I have not attacked anyone. I reported vandals, showing that what they did was in fact vandalism. Remove my block immediately! - TPTB (talk) 17:40, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I did nothing wrong TPTB (talk) 17:42, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Template:UEFA Champions League winners

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)[reply]

There's no war. I just corrected a mistake. http://www.romaniajournal.ro/fc-steaua-football-club-changes-name-to-fcsb-sa/ and this one, where a Romanian football oficial, Emilian Hulubei, declare that FC Fcsb SA does not own the Steaua records: http://www.gsp.ro/fotbal/liga-1/ultima-zi-cu-steaua-anunt-soc-facut-de-becali-de-maine-e-gata-anunt-important-despre-palmaresul-echipei-506150.html - TPTB (talk) 07:44, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Fîcîsîbî nu e Steaua bla, bla, bla"

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)[reply]

ANI notification

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)[reply]

Conflict of interest

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)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

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)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Logo of Commercial Property Executive.jpg

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)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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) 02:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Logo for the Right Alternative political party.jpg

⚠

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)[reply]

ANI notice

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)[reply]

FCSB

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)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FCSB

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)[reply]

What do you mean to edit disruptively? The fcsb article is FULL of disinformation. Not only that, but it has in it the information from another article. Almost the exact same information. Although it is a different topic. If it is not to be deleted, then someone should edit it to make it correct. Otherwise what is the point of this? To spread lies? TPTB (talk) 13:09, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]