User talk:Optimvs

Welcome!
Hello, Optimvs, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful: Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome!
 * Introduction to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

July 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=565757298 your edit] to Traian Băsescu may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page]. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:32, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

August 2013
Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. ''Please seek consensus before making obviously contentious edits. Many thanks.'' Jamesx12345 18:52, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Seeking consensus is what I did on the talk page. The other part doesn't seem to care.

Optimvs (talk) 18:33, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=571351481 your edit] to History of FC Steaua București may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:15, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * are clearly proven wrong by one of the most shameful episodes in the history of football cite web| url        =http://www.gsp.ro/gsp-special/ideile-gazetei/cupa-romaniei-din-1988-oprita-

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=574724271 your edit] to Traian Băsescu may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page]. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:19, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

FC Steaua București
Right or wrong, you are engaged in an edit war with a user without communicating with them in their talk page. Both of you should stop and engage in a conversation rather than changing the page drastically so often.  A m i t  웃  19:19, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors&#32; according to your reverts at FC Steaua București. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you.  A m i t  웃  19:21, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello Amit. The point is that I attempted to discuss the matter with the user on his talk page. Here is ample proof: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jamesx12345#FC_Steaua_Bucure.C8.99ti

If you look on the history of the "FC Steaua București" page you will see that my contribution was reverted trough the day by a bunch of IP's, an action that pretty much makes things clear. My contribution has 5 solid references, the people trying to delete it have ZERO arguments and are not interested to talk the subject or be constructive in any other way. I would appreciate if you looked more carefully into the matter before drawing such conclusions. Thank you.

Hope these steps help you in what you need to do next instead of re-adding the content. Also understand that the editor who is adding the content bears the responsibility to add valid references and gain consensus - in this case it would be you.  A m i t  웃  19:34, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This is what the situation is currently - you are propsosing some content which based on the reverts is currently is not supported by some editors. What you need to do (instead of adding the text again and again in the article)
 * 1) Propose the text in the article talk page and try to gain consensus
 * 2) If you feel there is no consensus and there needs to be a more broader audience brought in to look into it - start a request for comment on the question with clear options.
 * 3) If the RFC ends up as being against your content too, then probably it is not reasonable content to be added in the article and you should let it go.


 * All this would have been very nice if you didn't rushed to fill an edit war report after just a few minutes, long before I had the time to finish

the ample material that I added to the talk page. Your speed in doing this shows that your goal in this case had nothing to do with the goals of Wikipedia. Optimvs (talk) 21:53, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you.  A m i t  웃  19:44, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring, as you did at FC Steaua București. 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. The complete report of this case is at WP:AN3. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 01:40, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * It looks like you reverted other editors about thirty times at FC Steaua București. This easily breaks the WP:Three revert rule. You may be extremely confident that you are correct, but Wikipedia is not a solo project. You need to persuade the others that your material belongs in the article. Material which indicates past wrongdoing by members or supporters of this team we need to be especially cautious about, under the policy on WP:Biographies of living persons. EdJohnston (talk) 17:08, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Saying "You may be extremely confident that you are correct" implies that there is any doubt whatsoever about the truth in this case. However, if you bothered to read the previous version as well as my contribution, you would have probably noticed that the previous version had just one reference, which was an interview with the dictator's son, who denied any abuse. While my contribution has 5 solid references, including two articles in major US newspapers and one in the most important Spanish sport newspaper.
 * This being said, I really thought that the most important thing in the case of any encyclopledy (be it online or offline) is to present accurate informations.
 * And in the particular case of Wikipedia, I thought that the self-regulating community would react in a positive manner in a situation where someone points out (with AMPLE evidence) to an obvious lie that was posted on the site for so long. Obviously I was wrong, as the most important thing on Wikipedia appears to be the status quo, no matter how obviously fake are the "informations" already posted.Optimvs (talk) 18:47, 4 September 2013 (UTC)