User talk:Completebridge

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Adrian Năstase. 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. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. --Diannaa (talk) 19:46, 25 November 2014 (UTC) You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Diannaa (talk) 19:59, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

You were blocked for repeatedly re-adding material into an article about a living person, material that does not appear in the cited source and appears to be incorrect. You added the material fourteen times with the named account, plus additional uncounted times while you were not logged in. As you can see by the information regarding edit warring that appears above the block notice, this behaviour is not acceptable. Also, our website is especially careful about the factual accuracy of our articles about living people. Hence the block. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:27, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Please be more specific, what exactly "does not appear" in the source, and what "appears to be incorrect". Appears to whom, I can ask? Ok, I understand your point, and I'm ready to discuss whatever you may find useful. It' only a phrase, so it won't take long. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Completebridge (talk • contribs)
 * Here is your edit: . In it you say that he was convicted of money laundering. However, the source website, http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-25630091, says he was convicted on bribery, not money laundering. I have checked online, and can find no source that states Năstase was convicted of money laundering. You add the information that "a European Court hearing was no longer possible", but this information does not appear on the source web page. What is your source for that information? -- Diannaa (talk) 21:59, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok, you are right on "a European Court hearing was no longer possible". I made a mistake, and I apolgise. So, I put in this way: "However, in January 2014, when his own party ruled the country, Năstase was convicted of bribery in a separate case ." Hope this is ok. Thank you, and I will be more carefully on the future.


 * For over a month, using multiple IPs and switching to a named account when the article was protected, you edit warred to post incorrect information, posted it at least 20 times in an article about a living person. Please take the time to find out more about how to edit Wikipedia in a more professional manner. In particular, you need to read our Biographies of living persons policy. Following this policy is a requirement of editing this website. -- Diannaa (talk) 00:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll do that, thank you.
 * Hi Completebridge. Someone has removed your addition, with the edit summary "we need a source linking the relevance of his party being in power with his conviction". Please don't re-add it unless you have a source that links the two events. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:28, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello Diana, Thank you for the message. I have not a source that links these events.

But I kindly ask you to listen my point, what bothers me is this paragraph: "Năstase claimed the sentence was influenced by rival politician Traian Băsescu, at the time President of Romania, and indicated that if necessary, he would take his case to the European Court of Human Rights."

i) first, is not correct - in my view - to cite what a convict said, it's a natural impulse to deny allegations. But, if you cite what Nastase said about Basescu, it seems correct, for me, to immediatelly quote what Basescu said about Nastase - related to this case, obviously.

ii) from this paragraph, somebody can conclude that it was a political affair, but, as you can see from further events, was not political at all, once Nastase was convicted in second case, when - really! - his own party was in charge.

I just want to underline that Nastase both convictions was not political affairs at all.

That's why I strongly believe that my add comes to compensate that ... ugly... paragraph.

Do you think I have aberrant ideas?

Best regards, Florentin
 * Content issues need to be discussed on the article talk page, not here. I am not going to express an opinion on your above comments, but would like to point out that unsourced analysis can't be added to our articles. If you don't have sources, you can't add it. See WP:OR. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:33, 3 December 2014 (UTC)