I make a range of edits on here, sometimes there will be deletion of material (mostly when already tagged), sometimes 'clean-up' and sometimes references. You have to get used to the rules of WP and realise that they will not coincide with your exact views, and you shouldn't get upset when people make edits consist with WP core policies. However, I will look to improve the article you suggested. Regards. Eldumpo (talk) 19:43, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What is WP ?
I never read the "rules". (I found it really boring and you better edit or read about football)
I personally think that this rules can not be applied on football pages, this rule are too extensive, you can compare a article about football with one about science !--Alexiulian25 (talk) 19:55, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you say (NOW), but I just want to add the flags without linking the country ? " England " is OK like this ? The reader will see exactly about what country is about in the article, without reading each line of text ! --Alexiulian25 (talk) 20:11, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And also the page looks not so good without having something colorfull on. If is just text (black and white) is not so delightfull for the eye. Thats why is good to have flags, on football articles, because is not an article about science or literature where you can not use so often flagicons !--Alexiulian25 (talk) 20:18, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The rules do need to be followed! I have done some work to the 1964 article, and have added 1966 to my watch list, and will edit that before too long. Eldumpo (talk) 21:55, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The articles don't 'have to' include line-ups in order to be 'complete', and I have seen line-ups at a large number of articles! If I get time I will try and do some further work on them, including potentially adding player details.
WP = Wikipedia pages. So WP:INFOBOXFLAG is a link to Wikipedia:INFOBOXFLAG, which redirects to a section on the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Icons article. The rules are simple once you've read them. For instance "Avoid flag icons in infoboxes" and "avoid linking ... the names of major geographic features and locations, languages, nationalities and religions." (OVERLINK). They follow it with an example "France should not normally be linked; the republic of Tuva should." So Wales and England are major geographic locations that most English speakers will understand so linking those locations are not necessary. Luxembourg may not be familiar to most readers, but problably doesn't need to be linked for a football tournament (not saying it is). 208.81.212.222 (talk) 20:07, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The rules don't need to be followed if it makes sense not to follow them. See WP:IGNORE. That's a policy. But guidelines and manuals of style are usually well thought out so, it's good idea to follow them and argue at the MoS or guideline for reasons why they should not be followed.
The general rule, is countries for tournaments and leagues do not need to be highlighted on English Wikipedia, while nationalities for top performing individual players in those same tournaments and leagues is acceptable. However on a team or player article, you wouldn't highlight the nationality. It's consistent, but once you understand the classes, it makes sense.
Player examples: Cristiano Ronaldo, Lionel Messi and Manuel Neuer (top three places in last year's FIFA Ballon d'Or. Notice that in the table there, they show nationalities and flags, but not their own infoboxes. You'll also see them listed in the 2014 FIFA World Cup infobox as best something-or-other.)
Go check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Football. On the right side are a number of templates and their associated documentation. It's not well organized, and many have not been maintained for a while, but you should be able to see some additional useful information. Discuss any questions about those templates at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football.
Don't stop asking questions! Keep pushing back at inconsistencies you see and try to make Wikipedia a better place, as I see you trying to do! Cheers. 208.81.212.222 (talk) 22:31, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you say and with examples is much easier (you seem to be a nice guy). But ...
1.Look how this page look : Finnish Cup compaired with pages you showed me, we stay and talk about a flag and there are many many "redlinks", the quality is very low ! (and no one does something)
2.Why you do not have a user account ? Are you editing something now on Wikipedia ? or plan to edit something ? I have so many to edit (and top articles not regional football articles) Thank you !--Alexiulian25 (talk) 22:49, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Vandalism and other issues
When will you learn how to report vandalism (as well as what vandalism really is?). You insist on incorrectly using talkpage of a guideline despite it being removed all the time. And I see you saying to others "I have many edits", well that does not matter at all and you have many edits because you makke several small edits and clogg up the edit history. I suggest you start making bigger edits, use preview button, and perhaps even work on the articles in your sandbox before editing the "real article". Qed237(talk)00:56, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I saw several issues with List of Real Madrid C.F. seasons. First I spotted that you changed "Key to league" to "Key to League", why make the L big? And the same for other words as well. Then the rounds, you changed the order but the list was correct starting from final, semifinal and moving down. Also there was a lot of WP:OVERLINKING. Something should normally only be wikilinked once each section. Finally we dont write 1999–00, this would mean 1999–1900, we need to write all numbers when it covers a new century. Not saying it was all bad, but there were some issues and since it is a featured article (see star in top right corner) I felt it was best to restore the article. 10:39, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
I mean if you edit something major on Wikipedia ? (like many related articles). It is a friendly question, for example I also edit Cupa Romaniei finals, I start with the beginning and I am now in 1971.--Alexiulian25 (talk) 23:25, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is a protest, because many good editors resign because of the attitude of some editors, and because of some rules and because Wikipedia will run out of editors, and content. We are a group and we want to create a better Wikipedia ! just about Football with other rules and objects. Are you in ?--Alexiulian25 (talk) 16:03, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. You have already been reverted once, but still you insist of starting centering numbers without ending it. Always when you start something you must end it, for example <center>...</center> or <ref>...</ref> or <small>...</small> and similar. When you have been reverted you can always ask why instead of reinserting the same content again.Qed237(talk)03:45, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I did not end with "< / center>" because it is working without ending it. And I have seen many articles just with the "< center >". But from now I will use both. Thank you for clarification. Merry Christmas !--Alexiulian25 (talk) 00:04, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How can you call that vandalism ? I just edit it and add references ! And the all time table is a research from tables from each edition, and add the points, games, W / D / L ... etc ..--Alexiulian25 (talk) 21:25, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am here to edit, and improve Wikipedia, (I have so many to do) I am not here to talk and explain to people several times, about some edits, we have to cooperate and understand each other! I gave you examples with other pages and this is the best way to learn how it should look, I know about all the football articles on Wikipedia, any competition, any country !--Alexiulian25 (talk) 07:17, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reference errors on 26 December
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
As you have failed to stick to the agreement you made here when I unblocked your account, I have reinstated the block. You have continued to edit war (here and here, for example), and have continued to make uncivil attacks on other editors (for example, at your user page here, in your sandbox here (now deleted as WP:G10 - see below), and in edit summaries here and here). In general, looking at your edits since I unblocked you and at your talk page, I'm still seeing the combative and confrontational attitude that got you blocked last time - and that really cannot be allowed to continue. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:29, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to make it clear that this block is specifically my reverting my unblock because the conditions under which I unblocked have been broken, and that I am effectively reverting to the state of things before I tried to help. Any other admin is welcome to examine the totality of Alexiulian25's contributions and do whatever they think fit, without any need to consult me. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:35, 1 January 2016 (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).
I took a 7 day break from Wikipedia, to can calm and verify the mistakes. As you see here : [1] - It was not an edit war ! my edit was reverted because I did not center correct the numbers. I forgot to put < / center > at the end. here I did not know who was right, so I did not reverted again ! I just write different things ! I did not know that you are not allowed to show the flag in the football competition box. But I know now, and I will not reverted !
Decline reason:
You have not taken a seven-day break; you have been indefinitely blocked. And one of the main reasons for this, which you have wholly failed to address in your request, is your combative attitude and your continuing posting of attacks on other editors. Until you can master this tendency I see no prospect of an unblock. --Anthony Bradbury"talk"17:46, 4 January 2016 (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.
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).
I did not attack people, I just have an opinion about some editors, it is democracy, I just said that some editors are here to delete content, and I move it in my sandbox, and when I say to the other editor to edit about religion, I said this because I saw this on his page. where is the offence here ? I reverted what he did because he deleted all the flags from that page : here Maybe because i do not speak accurate English you confuse and missunderstood what I say.
Decline reason:
You still did not address the reasons which led to your block and did not explain how you have going to correct your behavior to avoid repetition of the problems. On the opposite, you behave like if your past behavior was not problematic. This is your second indefinite block. You were given a second chance before, and you wasted it. Please think well what you are going to write as your third unblock request, because if that one is declined you may have your talk access revoked.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:48, 4 January 2016 (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.
@Anthony Bradbury: I am really sorry, I will not speak about other editors again. I did not reply to this unblock from 7 days ! I took a break and think about it !
@Ymblanter: If you read above, you will find more about my block. How I will correct my behaviour 1.I will report the problems instead of engagging in an edit war! 2.I will ask users if something is wrong in their edits. 3.I will read more about Wikipedia policy.
@Od Mishehu: Hello, can you please verify my request and unblock me please, I am sorry for my behaviour, and I want to help improve Wikipedia after more then 7 days without adding a word ! I will not involve in edit wars anymore ! I will just report and ask other experienced editors in case ! Thank you and hope that you can help me !--Alexiulian25 (talk) 23:30, 4 January 2016 (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).
I promise that I will not revert people edits, and not get in edit wars ! Anyhow just a few persons edits romanian football, and the football articles needs permanent updating ! The articles will be completely non updated in 6 months ! As you see in the discusions above (please read all recent discusion on this page to can understand), I already solve the edit war I was involved, and I was partialy right. See here, here, and I was right here, here !
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.
Why do be punished for so long? I want to improve Wikipedia and I will be a constructive editor ! I promise ! if I do something you do not like, I will stay for 6 months, OK?--Alexiulian25 (talk) 14:48, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not punishment, it's prevention. Part of the problem is that you have completely ignored almost everything I pointed out in my offer, and all you keep doing is making the same kind of shallow promise that you broke after I unblocked you last time. You really do not seem to properly understand the problems, and until you do you are pretty much certain to keep repeating them. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:24, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I spend today reading about Wikipedia policy, and I know and understand the rules now! I promise I will not get involved in edit wars, I will ask on the talk page before or the editor in a civilized way, and mainly I will edit Romanian football! There is just another few persons who edits and needs my help to can keep updating. My plan is to finish with this redlinks : Template:Cupa României seasons.--Alexiulian25 (talk) 15:43, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Not an admin, just a user who has been following this user's edits for a while. It appears to me that this user has been given many chances and has not yet come to the realisation that he has been blocked for a good reason. I don't personally see any reason why he should be unblocked, personally, but I will leave that up to the administrators. Perhaps this user would like to read WP:OR as he believes Wikipedia should allow original research, and this explains why we cannot have this. Secondly, maybe you should, Alex, and I mean no offence here, read WP:COMPETENCE - it is clear that English is not your first language - maybe you should edit your strongest language's Wikipedia, and also because you clearly don't understand what Wikipedia is for; it is an encyclopaedia. Your edits to football articles suggest to me that you lack understanding of how one works.Chesnaught555 (talk) 18:24, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I want to edit English Wikipedia because English is an international language and more people can read and have access to this information, secondly I understand Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, but also an encyclopaedia should contain complete football related articles. No ? I did read the rules of Wikipedia now, I will add just referenced informaion and I promise to do not get involve in edit wars, just please let me free to edit ! ONE last chance !--Alexiulian25 (talk) 18:46, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not up to me. Then again, most people here, not just admins, oppose your unblocking, and I count myself amongst those editors. You are clearly not here to build an encyclopaedia, your editing is disruptive and it seems that whenever you find yourself in a disagreement with another editor you are either the instigator or you just make matters worse. Chesnaught555 (talk) 19:13, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, I will not do it again, I am new here, I learnt the rules now ~ and I have so much to do ! Can you help creating more seasons here : Template:Cupa României seasons. There are lots of red links, and my plan is to improve Romanian football and this are the basics. There is much more to create.--Alexiulian25 (talk) 20:09, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Football isn't an interest of mine. Also, I have noticed that you are indefinitely blocked with no talk page access. Maybe you should think about that for a second... Chesnaught555 (talk) 14:11, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that my sandbox is private and can use it for myself ! But if you deleted, that is it, but why this [2] and [3] have been deleted ? It was not in the main space ! I want the information to move it in my sandbox at least !--Alexiulian25 (talk) 15:33, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, you cannot use your sandbox (or any page on Wikipedia) to store lists of editors you don't like and why you don't like them - see WP:POLEMIC. As for those two deletions, I didn't delete them - but user space is not for keeping private copies of deleted articles. Wikipedia user space is specifically for helping users develop Wikipedia content, and is not for personal use otherwise. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:39, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but I want them back (the information) to can improve them, and I can store them in my sandbox, how can be deleted like this ? I took 7 days off to do my punishment, and look ... already deleted ! :( I did a lot of work on those, I have the right to recuperate the text and improve it in my sandbox ! No ?--Alexiulian25 (talk) 15:46, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, worry about getting unblocked first. You don't get to just decide to do a 7-day "punishment" yourself and declare it over, you have to actually appeal the reason you were unblocked and see if a reviewing admin is satisfied - so just wait for that review, above. Secondly, if you can get yourself unblocked, then go and ask the deleting admin if they will restore that content for you, explaining your reasons. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:47, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please unblock me now. I already exaplain what I did and why. Thank you very much ! @TommyBoy:, @Swarm:, @Yaris678:, @PrimeHunter:, @R'n'B:.
@Boing! said Zebedee: How do I ask other admins to review? Let me at least to edit other people talk pages and my own page, please. Thank you! and please see this: [4] and [5] and [6] the history and revert back what the unlogged editor did ! No explanation of his undo ?! and clarify why there should not be an edit war anymore !--Alexiulian25 (talk) 18:59, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You have posted an unblock request above, and that's all you need to do. While blocked you can only edit this talk page and no others. And no, I will not do your editing/reverting for you while you are blocked. Now please stop pinging me because I really can't explain any further than I already have, and just wait for someone else to review your unblock. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:11, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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 removed 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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:55, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly on my page does not respect the Wikipedia rules ? I will delete it ! You can NOT delete my account with specify what is bothering you.--Alexiulian25 (talk) 15:29, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why to be declined ? I did explain ! It was not an edit war ! What is the problem ? I have to start edit again ! Last 7 days I took free, I did my punishment !--Alexiulian25 (talk) 15:38, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstand. Someone asked for your user page to be deleted, but the admin who reviewed it decided it was not a valid request and did not delete it. The decision came down in your favor. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:43, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, I will not unblock you, as you broke the conditions under which I unblocked you last time - most importantly, you built attack lists of complaints against editors you don't like and you insulted them in edit summaries, which I see as a violation of "Never, ever, respond in an uncivil or insulting way, and never attack or harass a fellow editor". What you need to do now is wait for another admin to review your unblock request - they can do so without needing to consult me. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:50, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Joseph2302 made a mistake tagging your User page. His request was denied by another Admin in your favour. Unfortunately, I believe you don't have the right attitude to work collaboratively here. JMHamo (talk) 17:47, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@JMHamo: I am newish on Wikipedia, I will learn the "rules" and I am ready to have a positive attitude to work collaboratively here. Please be gentle with me, I do not know many about Wikipedia, I mainly know about football and I want to improve. Can you unblock me please ?--Alexiulian25 (talk) 19:42, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am not an Admin and if you continue to ping editors without waiting for a block review, you're in danger of having your Talk page editing taken away from you. Please don't ping me again as I'm going to ignore you. JMHamo (talk) 19:46, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also don't ping me again, I'm watching this talkpage anyway.
In answer to your question, I don't necessarily want you "out of Wikipedia", however the only interactions I've seen and had with you have been uncollaborative and attacking other users- Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and if you cannot work well with other editors, then you're going to get blocked like you did.
As for tagging your userpage, I don't like the "Why to change it? or leave it and create a better one!" section which is just a series of attacks against Wikipedia and its editors/policies. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:14, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
1.It is a democratic world, I do not attack people, I just say my opinion, people are allowed to say their views. And I try to be collaborative with editors, to improve Wikipedia, but also WE (Wikipedia Editors) need to cooperate and understand with each other, otherwise more and more editors will not edit anymore (this is why I am so upset because I know people who does not want to edit Wikipedia anymore and you also should put this Question "why?" to yourself.)
2.Soon I will delete that section, I just want the best for Wikipedia, but I need people to understand my point of view and sometimes help me (because I am new here - just 6 months).
I saw JMHamo's request at ANI and came by to have a look. To answer your point 1. It may be a democratic world (such as it is) but this is not a democracy. You have no "rights" here, you have privileges. The WMF grants you the privilege to edit here within policies agreed to by the community. You have been told several times that your posts are polemic and an attack on other editors, even if you don't think so. The intent is not the important part but the outcome. As was mentioned before, it may be best if you and the English Wikipedia parted ways as it is becoming increasingly obvious that you don't really understand the subtleties of English and will only struggle more in future. It really would be in your best interests to edit the Wikipedia that is in your native language. Blackmane (talk) 01:08, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@JMHamo: OK, I understand, but I need the information to can store it and work at it (to improve it and add more) in my sandbox, there I can keep it. How do I recuperate the text? I worked days for it!--Alexiulian25 (talk) 17:56, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, you don't understand, it's gone because community consensus was to delete it, so there shouldn't be a copy of it either. Wikipedia is not indefinite storage for articles that will never make to the Main space. JMHamo (talk) 18:01, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@JMHamo: Man, I was working on it, it was not done, I have 6 months time to can improve the article ! Where I can find the text ? How can you delete my work, days of work?
"indefinite storage for articles that will never make to the Main space" - how do you know that will never make it for Main space ?! if the article was not done.--Alexiulian25 (talk) 18:50, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
With an indefinite block, you have no time to work on it. Even if it existed and was acceptable, I don't think blocked editors cannot have content moved to main space. If it were allowed, it would be problematic. Along with that, your incessant requests are not making you friends. 208.81.212.222 (talk) 22:09, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I want my text back from those 2 articles, and add it in my sandbox, I worked a lot for those information, I am friendly and just try to get back to edit after more then 7 days of punishment and no edits, but if editors act like this and delete, and do not do constructive helps, WIKIPEDIA WILL RUN OUT OF EDITORS, no one will want to edit anymore, do you want this to happen ?--Alexiulian25 (talk) 22:15, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're blocked, so you cannot even edit your sandbox. First, get yourself unblocked, then you can ask for them back (I'd recommend doing it politely rather than demanding it, as you are doing here). Joseph2302 (talk) 22:18, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thank you very much, I try to be polite, but do not forget that English is not my own language and I am not a good speaker so I speak how I know, we in Romania do not get such good education :(, so mainly I know from learning English by myself!--Alexiulian25 (talk) 22:28, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sir Sputnik
@Sir Sputnik: Man, I want to be friendly with you, even I see you are the one who proposed to Boing! said Zebedee to block me.
Please, check again the pages where you said that I have been involved in an edit war ! As you see here I did not center the text correct first time, so it was not an edit war ! and here I did not know about the "rule", I am new on Wikipedia, and I learnt now that I can add flags in the tournament box, so I did not revert it anymore. Also, do not forget that I do not speak well English and maybe you find some of my words not polite ! But I did not mean it, I just do not how to speak polite. And I do not attack people anymore!--Alexiulian25 (talk) 23:26, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Someone to help and clarify the next edits war please !
I had enough of edits wars, and this is the main cause I have been blocked even maybe I was right !
First of all I need people who knows about football (soccer) and knows about how a football article should look ! (otherwisw I suggest to have a look of top football articles style and format).
@Walter Görlitz: Man, please check other football competition before to edit something about football. If you edit the final score in the infobox match you add the score from the penalty, not add an extra goal to the winning team. See here: 2006 FIFA World Cup Final to understand better and please add back the correct results !--Alexiulian25 (talk) 23:48, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Walter Görlitz: And also this user reverted back 2012 World Football Challenge, 2011 World Football Challenge, 2009 World Football Challenge (now I see that he also use 208.81.212.222.) committing into an edit war while I am block because of the edit war with him. @Boing! said Zebedee: can you also please check this editor past edits!? Because he seems to do know how to edit football articles, see also Supercupa României editions - read above ! Now Boing! said Zebedee, I hope you understand me, and maybe I was uncivilized (but I did not insult him) and I promise I will not get with this editor in a war and to resolve everything peacefull. Please unblock me now! (I will respect your offer)--Alexiulian25 (talk) 00:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Whyyy ???? What I did wrong ?? please read what I write and see who is right !! and do not watch my page if you are sick !!! (is not about you in this conversation !!)--Alexiulian25 (talk) 00:05, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're a blocked editor and your abusing your talk page access to harass other editors when talk page access at this point is to appeal to admins with reasons why your block (for disruptive editing) should be lifted. I have been blocked in the past, primarily for edit warring, and I only used my talk page to appeal my case and to alert admins of vandalism on my watch list. While, yes, Wikipedia is a democracy, placing the names of editors on a "hit list" or possibly just a "hate list" is not an appropriate way to behave in a democracy. What you offered was a rationale for why you don't think your behaviour was bad. In essence, you told the nominating editor and the admin who blocked you that they're wrong and you're right. That is exactly the behaviour that shows that you don't want to edit cooperatively, but you want everyone to cooperate with your editing behaviour. What admins want to see is a reason for how you will change your behaviour which has been identified as inappropriate.
I just try to report an edit war ! And I am the one to be completely blocked ? :( I can not believe it, I am civilized and try to cooperate and I am the only one punished, without someone to look on what I said and check if I am right or not ! :(--Alexiulian25 (talk) 00:15, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's curious that that account was also used on December 25 to add the "Or to split from Wikipedia" section to your user page. And how do you know the two accounts used different IP addresses? It's usually easy to change IP address, by switching your modem off and on again. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:17, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So you are saying that you did not add the "Or to split from Wikipedia" section? It's curious that you did not mention that when someone else complained about it and instead just said "Soon I will delete that section, I just want the best for Wikipedia, but I need people to understand my point of view..." - so it is your point of view, but it was not you who added it?! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:31, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It was in my sandbox, I did not say nothing about that person because I am here to improve Wikipedia football, not to chat with people. And I took 7 days free, but believe me, It is not my account, that one.--Alexiulian25 (talk) 11:41, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It was not in your sandbox, it was your user page. You claim that another person added back your personal opinions to your user page and then you immediately, from this account, carried on and edited it and you have no idea who that person was? I do find that hard to believe. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:55, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It was not me, why to use other account just for this ? And in the mean time I did other things, I do not remember details, I want to improve Wikipedia, not to talk about this little things. Check my history of edits and see how accurate and with references they are. I am not here to perturb !--Alexiulian25 (talk) 12:07, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Standard Offer
Alexiulian25, I think your best hope for unblock now is with a Standard Offer, which means leaving Wikipedia for at least six months before making another block appeal, and not editing at all from any other accounts or logged out. In that time, I want you to think about a few things...
Your sole interest seems to be football, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia (click that and read it to understand what one of those actually is) and not a football fan site. Wikipedia has lots of rules (sometimes too many, perhaps), but they were made to suit an encyclopedia and not a football site, and they almost always have a very good reason for existence. The English Wikipedia has more than five million articles, only a tiny proportion of which are about football. So when you see a rule you don't like and you don't understand why it should be there, please remember that the rules are there to encompass all sorts of subjects, like science, medicine, history, biography, philosophy, art... not just football. A rule might not make sense to you from a football perspective, but it might be very important in other fields (many of which are overlapping - for example, biography overlaps probably all other subjects).
Your biggest problem here is your refusal to accept the Wikipedia way of doing things. I see you constantly arguing that you should be allowed to add unsourced material, and also your own original research, to articles. And you write complaints on your user pages about Wikipedia's refusal to let you do that - and complaints about individual editors who are simply upholding Wikipedia's policies. You need to stop this completely and accept Wikipedia's rules if you wish to continue. If you don't like a rule, you still need to accept it - even if you don't understand why it is there.
You also complain about the way other people have left Wikipedia because of the rules, and cite them as reasons why Wikipedia must change in order to stop people leaving. But we can never please everyone, and if the rules were changed to, for example, disallow the removal of unsourced material, or to allow the inclusion of original research (both of which you have said you want), a different set of people would leave instead. There will always be people leaving because they don't like the rules - and it will always be like that no matter what the rules actually are.
The key to Wikipedia is collaboration, and that means approaching other people with an assumption of good faith. So if someone makes an edit that you do not like, do not just revert them with edit summaries like "deleters - never help - just delete - is a shame" or telling them to "go back to jisus". If you see a change made with the comment "per MOS:FLAG", don't just revert because you don't like the change - go and read MOS:FLAG to try to understand why the change was made, and carefully consider whether that editor was actually right concerning Wikipedia policy. The same goes for all other edits - don't just revert because you personally don't like an edit, but instead try to understand why the edit was made (and actually talk about it - to the editor, or on the article talk page).
Other stuff exists, but that doesn't mean that other stuff is right - it might be, or it might not. If an article is changed to adhere to Wikipedia's manual of style, for example, you should not use another article that also does not adhere to the manual of style as a reason to revert. Wikipedia is inconsistent in following rules and style guidelines, and that's unfortunate but it's inevitable for a number of reasons - it's a very dynamic project with huge numbers of changes made every day, not everyone understands the rules, not everything is reviewed, and guidelines do actually change.
Absolutely never make attacks on other editors, and that includes labeling people as "deleters", and keeping lists of people you don't like along with their perceived faults. When you make an edit, the summary should be about what you did, not about what you think someone else's faults are.
Don't go so fast. You need to be able to slow down a bit, think on what people are doing and saying, and try to understand the reasons behind what they are doing and saying. But what I'm seeing a lot is a stubborn approach of just doing everything your own way and not sitting back and listening and trying to understand. You often appear to be very impatient - for example yesterday when you were repeatedly pinging everyone you could think of rather than just waiting for your unblock request to be reviewed. You need to understand that everyone is a volunteer here, and that there are many more important areas for problem solving than just football and just you. So in short, you need to change your combative, confrontational and impatient approach.
If you can stay away for six months (without any block evasion - that would kill your chances for sure, as you are not allowed to use any other accounts or edit logged out while you are blocked at this account) and then come back and make an unblock request that convinces me or another admin that you really are starting to understand what I'm saying here, then there is a good chance you will be unblocked then. But you must actually change your behavior, or there would certainly be another block very quickly. Alternatively, you could ignore this advice and simply make another unblock request - but I don't think that would go well. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:17, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why to wait 6 months ? I have so many to edit (I am free and I have time this week)... Look here how many red links : Cupa Romaniei in the template.
I promise that I will not revert people edits, and not get in edit wars ! Anyhow just a few persons edits romanian football, and the football articles needs permanent updating ! The articles will be completely non updated in this period of time !--Alexiulian25 (talk) 10:44, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As you see in the discusions above, I already solve the edit war I was involved, and I was partialy right. See here, here, and I was right here, here.
The problem is not any specific edits (those were just examples), it is a general problem of your approach to Wikipedia and to collaborative editing, as I have tried to explain in my offer above. You have my offer, and it is final. If you reject my offer, I can see two possible alternatives. Either make a new unblock request whenever you think the time is right and let another admin review it (and they are welcome to review without consulting me, but I doubt anyone would unblock right now), or you could appeal at the section on the ANI page. If you want to appeal at ANI, I'm prepared to unblock you temporarily only for that purpose - you would have to promise to edit only at ANI and at your own talk page here, and at no other page anywhere on Wikipedia. Whichever path you choose, I would strongly recommend you take the time to address all of the points I have made above. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:29, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Boing! said Zebedee: Man, how you can block me for 6 months ? It makes no sense, the romanian football articles will become all non updated, unless you take personally the responsability to constant improve them, anyhow this encyclopedia is not to often updated, the majority of football articles are disaster with very less information !! Unblock me for Romanian football at least, or set an expire time in 10 days or 2 weeks, it is enough to learn the "rules" you have told me ! Thank you !--Alexiulian25 (talk) 10:15, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are not blocked for six months, you are blocked indefinitely with a recommendation that you wait six months before requesting unblock (as per WP:Standard Offer) - and others who have commented here appear to support that. I described the problems as I saw them, and you will not be unblocked until you can demonstrate that you understand the problems and can resolve them - whether that's six weeks, six months, or however long. You can request unblock whenever you feel you can do that, and it will be up to someone else (not me) to review your request.
I have explained all this to you before, but as far as I can see you simply do not have the ability to understand what I have been saying. I don't know why that is - maybe it's the language barrier, maybe you're just too young, I really don't know. Now, I really can not explain things any clearer, so all I ask now is that you stop appealing to me personally and stop pinging me. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:12, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And what is going to happen with the quality of Romanian football Wikipedia articles ? Anyhow is low quality, will be also non updated ? You do not edit football, you do not know, but other people around the world are waiting to read new topics ! Let me edit some pages at least !--Alexiulian25 (talk) 12:17, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is not technically possible to allow you to only edit selected pages. And as for people wanting to know the latest about Romanian football, well, your inability to keep it updated is your own fault and nobody else's. Anyway, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a news source, and I'm sure there are plenty of other places people can get the latest scores. Now, I will not be replying here further, and I suggest you stop repeating yourself as it will not achieve anything. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:22, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I want to report a constant vandalism on this page also: Football records in Spain, block those people from there also. That is the big problem of Wikipedia, it does not judge fair for each user! Others can do what they want, being authoritarian, and others are punished even they are right !--Alexiulian25 (talk) 12:29, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have revoked your ability to edit this talk page as you have been repeatedly using it to try to continue editing by proxy and to continue your disputes with others. If you wish to appeal further, see WP:UTRS. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:32, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alexiulian25, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.
This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Alexiulian25, I know that you have ability to edit this page, so I will just leave this message here and that will be that. As you are now banned, every time you create a new sock puppet, whether it be through a named account or IP, and it is discovered your account will be blocked and all editors who are familiar with your editing are permitted to revert your edits without fear of violating WP:3RR or being hauled up to WP:ANEW for edit warring.
If you want to even be considered for an unban, you should just go away for a minimum of 6 months. Do not edit through IP's, do not edit through open proxies, do not create sock accounts, just leave Wikipedia for at least 6 months without touching it and then contact UTRS to have your talk page access unlocked so you can make an unblock request.
This is the last open door the community can leave for a banned user. The 6 month time frame is not a bright line. It does not mean that at the end of 6 months the community will automatically agree to unblock you. It is the shortest length of time frame that the community is willing to consider an unblock.
I must emphasise that, in your case, the chance that your block will be reviewed and the community agreeing to an unblock will be very, very remote, despite what I have said above about the possibility of an unblock. It is obvious that you struggle with subtleties in English that native speakers like myself and the vast majority of editors, who are at a minimum fluent speakers, on ENWP take for granted. This is not an insult as I could say the same about my skills in Romanian, which are non-existent. Please take this suggestion in good faith when I say that I hope you take your desire to contribute to Wikipedia and do so in the Romanian Wikipedia. In time, articles that you write over there may be picked up by a bilingual Romanian/English speaker and translated into the English Wikipedia. In that way, your contributions will come to be present on the English Wikipedia. Regards Blackmane (talk) 00:29, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree with User:Blackmane this behaviour has to stop and all edits will be reverted as you are banned from Wikipedia. Edits like this will not help you in any way (and that and other IP's should be blocked as proxy). Qed237(talk)01:14, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, I'd just like to add that by claiming that your sockpuppets and IPs are your relatives, you're essentially using the WP:BROTHER excuse. It will not get you anywhere. As Blackmane has pointed out, even though you are seemingly taking the Standard Offer, there's no guarantee you'll be able to use your talk page in six months, let alone be unblocked. My advice to you would be, in these next six months, to attempt to improve your English - that way, when you do appeal to UTRS, they will be able to understand your request a little better. --Ches(talk)12:34, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sockpuppet investigation
Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alexiulian25, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.
Hi Alex, just following up your August 2015 request on my talkpage for Mitropa Cup articles. I am pleased to tell you that the 1930s editions of the tournament are now all live. Thanks, C67911:00, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Alexiulian25. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
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.
Note for any future unban review: Alexiulian25 requested unbanning under the standard offer in April 2017; the discussion was archived before it could be formally closed but the overwhelming consensus was opposed to unbanning at that time. Full discussion is here. Yunshui雲水12:29, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unblock review
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).
The block is no longer necessary because I understand what I was blocked for, I will not do it again, and I will make productive contributions instead. I intend to help contribute to the encyclopedia after I am unblocked, I want to improve Romanian football and create useful articles as I did before. Thank you!
Decline reason:
You are banned. You need to follow the instructions in WP:UNBAN. Note that you'll likely only get one more chance to make an acceptable unban request before you lose access to your talk page again, so make it count. Yamla (talk) 17:13, 27 March 2020 (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.
Unblock review
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).
I'm really sorry for what I did and I can make you sure I'll not do it again. I understand what I was ban for and I will make more productive contributions instead. I intend to contribute at the encyclopedia because I really like to do it. I want to improve Romanian football and create usefull articles as I did before. Also I want to ask an administrator to copy my appeal to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard where it can be addressed by the community.
I assume my mistakes and I hope you can understand me.
Thank you!
Please include a decline or accept reason.
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.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee. Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FC Armătura Zalău 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 until the discussion has finished.
