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 Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!

July 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that 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 my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:32, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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. James^x1 2345 18:52, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

September 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that 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 my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

are clearly proven wrong by one of the most shameful episodes in the history of football <ref>{{cite web| url =http://www.gsp.ro/gsp-special/ideile-gazetei/cupa-romaniei-din-1988-oprita-

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:15, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that 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 my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:19, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Optimvs. You have new messages at Philg88's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

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)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors 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)[reply]

Hello Amit. The point is that I attempted to discuss the matter with the user on his talk page. Here is ample proof: http://en.wiki.x.io/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.

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)

Propose the text in the article talk page and try to gain consensus
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.
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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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

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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. 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#User:Optimvs reported by User:A.amitkumar (Result: 31 hours). Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 01:40, 4 September 2013 (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).

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

Request reason:

I opened a well documented section on the talk page, as you can see none of the other editors involved in this edit war has ANY intention to participate in a constructive way. This can be also noticed by reading the comments (or lack of any comments) on their reverts. And their intention to simply keep an outright lie on wikipedia is proven also by their extensive use of IP's yesterday, in order to make reverts trough the day. Considering all these circumstances, I honestly believe that the worst possible decision would be to block the only person who actually TRIED to have a constructive dialogue, presented arguments, brought 5 solid references and so on. It is my honest opinion that the correct course of action would be to protect my contribution, therefore forcing the others to participate in a discussion on the talk page and at least attempt to present some arguments. P.S. I am asking you to look attentive at the behaviour of all those involved in this edit war because, trough the last days, I had ample oportunity to understand that these people don't want discussions, don't want consensus, don't want to act in a constructive manner. They just want these informations out of the page of their favourite team, period. And I believe that an experienced admin will understand this if he or she looks closelly to the case. Optimvs (talk) 09:17, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Per below. — Daniel Case (talk) 17:36, 4 September 2013 (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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]