Dante4786
|
||
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message edit
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
July 2023 edit
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to FC Steaua București, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. The Banner talk 10:18, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
- Again, you don't understand the subject. Please read again. It's about TWO teams. Two clubs claim the identity of Steaua. For a neutral aproach, the club templates of BOTH teams should be present. Dante4786 (talk) 10:37, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
- I am well aware of your history of disruptive editing, edit warring and POV-pushing. You had a point when you added two templates but you removed one template in favour of two others. That is not a neutral change. The Banner talk 10:44, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
- False accusations and irrelevant to the subject. I didn't remove ANYTHING. You are not paying the slightest attention. Look again. IT'S THE SAME TEMPLATE. I only renamed one to their present name and added the template of the other team, which was wrongfully removed a few days ago. It wasn't even my idea to put the templates in. But if they are in, the templates of both teams should be present. Dante4786 (talk) 10:55, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
- I am well aware of your history of disruptive editing, edit warring and POV-pushing. You had a point when you added two templates but you removed one template in favour of two others. That is not a neutral change. The Banner talk 10:44, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message edit
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
January 2024 edit
Hello, I'm The Banner. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Template:UEFA Champions League winners have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. The Banner talk 16:23, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at FC Steaua București. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. pOV-pushing, steam rolling a prior consensus The Banner talk 18:50, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
- Like I said on your talk page. You are ignoring my questions. You are undoing my edits without giving valid reasons or any reasons whatsoever. You are pushing point of view and you encourage intellectual property infringement. If you keep this up, I will have to report you. Dante4786 (talk) 18:57, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
- I revert your edits that give no or no valid reasoning. So if you give no reasoning for your edits, I do not have to give reasoning for my reverts. I suggest you go to the talk page before making the edits an try to find consensus there. Something to the tune of "I propose to change <old text> into <new text> Because of <reasoning and evidence>. The Banner talk 19:21, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
- Nice of you to respond AFTER I said I will report you. Check your talk page. No reason to write in multiple places about the same thing. Dante4786 (talk) 20:23, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
- You are welcome but that is the effect of starting discussions on multiple pages. The Banner talk 22:16, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
- Nice of you to respond AFTER I said I will report you. Check your talk page. No reason to write in multiple places about the same thing. Dante4786 (talk) 20:23, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
- I revert your edits that give no or no valid reasoning. So if you give no reasoning for your edits, I do not have to give reasoning for my reverts. I suggest you go to the talk page before making the edits an try to find consensus there. Something to the tune of "I propose to change <old text> into <new text> Because of <reasoning and evidence>. The Banner talk 19:21, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Acroterion (talk) 00:37, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
- Stop accusing other editors of theft, intellectual or otherwise. Disagreement over the content or existence of an article on Wikipedia is not theft. Your accusation is also pushing the boundaries of Wikipedia's policy concerning legal threats. Acroterion (talk) 00:38, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Acroterion: I'm only defending myself. I reported an abuse. And please explain how can I present my point of view regarding a LEGAL dispute (Steaua vs FCSB), without using LEGAL reasons??? The SUBJECT involved is ABOUT intellectual property. One party stole (the name) from the other party. It was never my threat, it was never A threat. Like I said before, I don't work for the entities involved, I CAN'T sue even if I wanted to. Please don't put words in my mouth, I never threated with legal actions. I only explained how articles on Wikipedia shouldn't break the legal rights of other entities. Again, shouldn't Wikipedia reflect current affairs? Shouldn't Wikipedia respect the legal rights of other entities? Shouldn't Wikipedia avoid confusion by redirecting readers to a suitable and neutral article about the dispute? Please explain how any of this is an attack. I literally commented on the content, on the use of "FC Steaua Bucuresti" regarding a team who is forbidden by the law to be associated with that name. It's literally a fact, it isn't my opinion, it isn't an attack on any editor. I gave sources (and until now, no one challenged them), I explained my position with plenty of details, what more can I do? I am blamed of pushing a POV by somebody who actually is at fault of this. Dante4786 (talk) 03:44, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
- ANI isn't a forum for dispute resolution, and accusing editors who disagree with you of harassment and muddling it with "intellectual property theft" in which you appeared to mix up other editors with what appears to be a trademark dispute just made it worse. This kind of "who owns the name" happens on on Wikipedia from time to time, usually with bands that have broken up. We can't resolve it, all we can do is to report what happened. Please back up and *briefly* explain, using reliable published sources that are not court documents, why you believe that the redirect points at the wrong thing, or that it should be an article, at the talkpage. Disagreement is not harassment, and Wikipedia isn't a court. I strongly advise you to withdraw the ANI report, you didn't help yourself there. Acroterion (talk) 04:19, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Acroterion: I apologise again if ANI wasn't the correct place to report the abuse. I understand that Wkipedia can't solve trademark dispute, but that's my point. It's already resolved in real life. That's what I am trying to say. We should report on what happened but we don't. The edit I am trying to challenge is stuck in the past. It doesn't reflect the present. The redirect points aren't even consistent with the articles on Wikipedia. The articles do reflect "who owns the name". https://www-gsp-ro.translate.goog/fotbal/liga-1/exclusiv-fcsb-nu-e-steaua-gigi-becali-a-pierdut-definitiv-numele-steaua-538743.html?_x_tr_sl=ro&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp The problem is the redirect points. Dante4786 (talk) 04:45, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
- ANI isn't a forum for dispute resolution, and accusing editors who disagree with you of harassment and muddling it with "intellectual property theft" in which you appeared to mix up other editors with what appears to be a trademark dispute just made it worse. This kind of "who owns the name" happens on on Wikipedia from time to time, usually with bands that have broken up. We can't resolve it, all we can do is to report what happened. Please back up and *briefly* explain, using reliable published sources that are not court documents, why you believe that the redirect points at the wrong thing, or that it should be an article, at the talkpage. Disagreement is not harassment, and Wikipedia isn't a court. I strongly advise you to withdraw the ANI report, you didn't help yourself there. Acroterion (talk) 04:19, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Acroterion: I'm only defending myself. I reported an abuse. And please explain how can I present my point of view regarding a LEGAL dispute (Steaua vs FCSB), without using LEGAL reasons??? The SUBJECT involved is ABOUT intellectual property. One party stole (the name) from the other party. It was never my threat, it was never A threat. Like I said before, I don't work for the entities involved, I CAN'T sue even if I wanted to. Please don't put words in my mouth, I never threated with legal actions. I only explained how articles on Wikipedia shouldn't break the legal rights of other entities. Again, shouldn't Wikipedia reflect current affairs? Shouldn't Wikipedia respect the legal rights of other entities? Shouldn't Wikipedia avoid confusion by redirecting readers to a suitable and neutral article about the dispute? Please explain how any of this is an attack. I literally commented on the content, on the use of "FC Steaua Bucuresti" regarding a team who is forbidden by the law to be associated with that name. It's literally a fact, it isn't my opinion, it isn't an attack on any editor. I gave sources (and until now, no one challenged them), I explained my position with plenty of details, what more can I do? I am blamed of pushing a POV by somebody who actually is at fault of this. Dante4786 (talk) 03:44, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
Detail edit
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CS_Dinamo_Bucure%C8%99ti_(basketball)
You could simply see and move (american outdated players) roster, very similar situation by unfamiliar editors as for steaua, project reached sad days... (very few local basket editors care). thanks in advance! 93.138.235.76 (talk) 14:32, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Etiquette edit
Hi Dante. Can I politely ask you to stop using bold and underline in talk page discussions? It comes across as shouting, which comes across as rude. It also makes the post more difficult to read, so your point may be lost altogether.
Also, if you could format your external links it would be great. A square bracket, the url, then a space, then a description and a closing square bracket makes it neat and easy to read. For example, "here: https://google.com" produces "here: https://google.com", whereas "[https://google.com here] produces "here". With those very long Google Translate urls it would make a very big difference. Thank you. Scolaire (talk) 11:16, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
- It's not shouting. That's your interpretation. I'm only using the tools provided by Wikipedia to express myself. I try to emphasize the main ideas in a big wall of text. That's the point and how I view it. I'm not spamming it but I do intent to use it when I feel it's right. Some words I underline, others I bold because sometimes I try to make a comparison. Some words (which often are quotes) I put in italic. Other words are main ideas or perhaps conclusions. And as a personal rule, I want to be precise and not leave anything out. I think I would have changed even the colour of the font, if I knew how to :) I assure you that I am very attentive with how and why I use it. But thanks for the second suggestion. I do want my text and ideas to be easy to follow. Most of the time, I have to copy-paste the format (or code or whatever it's called) from the editor I am replying to. Unfortunately, my How-Do-I-Do-This-On-Wikipedia is very basic. While I do try to learn and be better at it, it's sometimes overwhelming. Dante4786 (talk) 06:52, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
- User:Scolaire is absolutely correct. User:Dante4786, this is not going well for you. Your recent wall of text at the ANI discussion isn't helping your cause. By my reading, Scolaire is offering collegial contact, attempting to demonstrate respect and good faith. You are shouting. And you know it, too. You should act civilly, and you are not doing so. You tend to personalize discussion, frequently mentioning others' motives and your assessment of their reasoning. You are one warning away from an indef block from this entire subject matter, so please work with Scolaire and I. We are trying to help. If it gets overwhelming, we're suggesting you step back and let others edit. When you've seen it work, page consensus (especially including talk page consensus, where a body must justify one's opinions with sources); it's a pretty impressive thing to watch over time. Let's not get in such a hurry. Are you here to say, or will you just get indefinitely blocked for your continued approach. BusterD (talk) 21:16, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
- BusterD "Wall of text" Is that a bad thing? I'm trying to prevent any kind of misunderstanding. I don't want to seem like I'm intentionally trying to avoid a topic. I don't write much to be confrontational but to be as transparent as possible. "Scolaire is offering collegial contact, attempting to demonstrate respect and good faith." I thought so too. I'm trying to believe it even now. But please, please read our discussion from here Talk:FC Steaua București records dispute. I answered all his points and I tried to reach a common ground. I can't stress this enough! And intentionally or by mistake, he ignored my answers. I even put some emoticons/emojis/smiley faces, like this :) just to show I'm beeing friendly. And that was before I was accused of shouting. To be honest, I'm starting to feel like Adam Sandler in the beginning of this scene: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzUc3Eqzzos:) I swear to God, I'm not shouting. "You should act civilly, and you are not doing so." Exactly where?:( I'm just defending myself. I swear I didn't even want to reply again. But I was accused of new things, should I ignore it? And get block because I didn't defend myself? And because I let things go unspoken? Please put yourself in my shoes, do you like it when you are accused of things? Or being threatened with blocking by a user (The Banner) who falsely reported you for sockpuppetry in the past? This is what happened to me. And Scolaire reproached me for a discussion on a talk page from a few years ago, even though I accepted "defeat" back then and literally did what you ask from me now: I stepped back. And I stepped back not just once, but on different pages. I don't try to impose my point of view by force. What was the point of him mentioning those talk pages? Except to put me in a bad light? How is this fair or relevant to the current subject? You guys (and I'm not talking about you directly, it's just a form of speaking, I'm talking about some of the editors who posted there) were so caught up in the "he is threatening us with legal action" nonsense (which I never did) that you misunderstood my position from the beginning and now anything I say is perceived in a negative light. Please try and see things from my point of view. If I was such an unreasonable person, I think I would have been blocked a long time ago. It's not like I was hidding myself and never interacted with older editors. I asked for protection for some pages, I reported on real repeated vandalism (and I was proven right, seeing how those editors got banned), I did post on talk pages and replied everytime my views were questioned. Please see the whole picture and don't take the opinions formed by others who misunderstood me from the beginning. Dante4786 (talk) 23:55, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, wall of text is a bad thing. Also, BusterD is the only person I can see speaking up for you at ANI, so you really should listen to him. Scolaire (talk) 10:33, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
- And again, you make requests while ignoring mine. I do listen to BusterD. Believe it or not, I listen to you. It would be nice if it were mutual. Dante4786 (talk) 11:57, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, what was your request? I missed it in the wall of text. Scolaire (talk) 11:59, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
- Now three of us are talking just like normal people. Thank you. Let's do this for a bit. First, Dante4786, please try to keep your post lengths shorter, even if that means more posts back and forth. Long posts make it harder for me to ask for clarification and find overall agreement. (Any small disagreement seems to signal overall disagreement? Does that make sense?) Would you be willing do that for Scolaire and I at least? We are here. BusterD (talk) 15:46, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
- Wow, sarcasm... Dante4786 (talk) 01:00, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, what was your request? I missed it in the wall of text. Scolaire (talk) 11:59, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
- And again, you make requests while ignoring mine. I do listen to BusterD. Believe it or not, I listen to you. It would be nice if it were mutual. Dante4786 (talk) 11:57, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, wall of text is a bad thing. Also, BusterD is the only person I can see speaking up for you at ANI, so you really should listen to him. Scolaire (talk) 10:33, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
- BusterD "Wall of text" Is that a bad thing? I'm trying to prevent any kind of misunderstanding. I don't want to seem like I'm intentionally trying to avoid a topic. I don't write much to be confrontational but to be as transparent as possible. "Scolaire is offering collegial contact, attempting to demonstrate respect and good faith." I thought so too. I'm trying to believe it even now. But please, please read our discussion from here Talk:FC Steaua București records dispute. I answered all his points and I tried to reach a common ground. I can't stress this enough! And intentionally or by mistake, he ignored my answers. I even put some emoticons/emojis/smiley faces, like this :) just to show I'm beeing friendly. And that was before I was accused of shouting. To be honest, I'm starting to feel like Adam Sandler in the beginning of this scene: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzUc3Eqzzos:) I swear to God, I'm not shouting. "You should act civilly, and you are not doing so." Exactly where?:( I'm just defending myself. I swear I didn't even want to reply again. But I was accused of new things, should I ignore it? And get block because I didn't defend myself? And because I let things go unspoken? Please put yourself in my shoes, do you like it when you are accused of things? Or being threatened with blocking by a user (The Banner) who falsely reported you for sockpuppetry in the past? This is what happened to me. And Scolaire reproached me for a discussion on a talk page from a few years ago, even though I accepted "defeat" back then and literally did what you ask from me now: I stepped back. And I stepped back not just once, but on different pages. I don't try to impose my point of view by force. What was the point of him mentioning those talk pages? Except to put me in a bad light? How is this fair or relevant to the current subject? You guys (and I'm not talking about you directly, it's just a form of speaking, I'm talking about some of the editors who posted there) were so caught up in the "he is threatening us with legal action" nonsense (which I never did) that you misunderstood my position from the beginning and now anything I say is perceived in a negative light. Please try and see things from my point of view. If I was such an unreasonable person, I think I would have been blocked a long time ago. It's not like I was hidding myself and never interacted with older editors. I asked for protection for some pages, I reported on real repeated vandalism (and I was proven right, seeing how those editors got banned), I did post on talk pages and replied everytime my views were questioned. Please see the whole picture and don't take the opinions formed by others who misunderstood me from the beginning. Dante4786 (talk) 23:55, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
- User:Scolaire is absolutely correct. User:Dante4786, this is not going well for you. Your recent wall of text at the ANI discussion isn't helping your cause. By my reading, Scolaire is offering collegial contact, attempting to demonstrate respect and good faith. You are shouting. And you know it, too. You should act civilly, and you are not doing so. You tend to personalize discussion, frequently mentioning others' motives and your assessment of their reasoning. You are one warning away from an indef block from this entire subject matter, so please work with Scolaire and I. We are trying to help. If it gets overwhelming, we're suggesting you step back and let others edit. When you've seen it work, page consensus (especially including talk page consensus, where a body must justify one's opinions with sources); it's a pretty impressive thing to watch over time. Let's not get in such a hurry. Are you here to say, or will you just get indefinitely blocked for your continued approach. BusterD (talk) 21:16, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
I see you've taken a brief break from editing. Good for you. When you get back ping me, and we can talk a bit. Please indulge me for now. I'd like to edit with you on a page, then we can talk about the edits. This may seem like very rudimentary work, but in a way, you will be teaching me how you discuss things, and I'm slow. If you are a sane and reasonable individual who actually enjoys this subject matter, then WE NEED YOU on Wikipedia. We need you badly. If you allow me, I intend to help you understand our social norms better, freeing you to make better editing decisions. This is totally optional on your part but accepting my mentorship may prevent you from suffering any further insult or injury. The mentorship would involve an agreement between you and I. Would you be willing to discuss such an option? BusterD (talk) 20:31, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
- @BusterD: Thanks for your help! I was going to accept, but then I saw the description "Editors whose conduct is repeatedly problematic" (with which I don't agree, but I still appreciate your offer) and that I was proposed for a ban. And worse, Scolaire is now responding with sarcasm (both here and on ANI), openly mocking me just because I had the good will to answer him. Honestly, it's disrespectful and this whole thing left me with a bitter taste. Punishment for being too communicative, victim blaming, twisting words, ignoring sources, answers and questions, double standards... It's enough :) I guess old editors stick together and there's nothing I can do about it. Oh well, such is life! But again, without the slightest sign of irony on my part, I do appreciate your contribution to this dialogue. You are very polite and please, don't sell yourself short, you aren't slow :) And offering your help, saying I would teach you how I discuss things and you would help me understand the rules, that was very kind of you! I appreciate that among the few who talked, you were the only one who at least tried to understand my position. Thanks for your offer but I think I am leaving Wikipedia. I am truly sorry if I wasted your time and I wish you the best of luck! On Wikipedia and in real life :) Cheers, BusterD! Dante4786 (talk) 02:19, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- Stepping away from Wikipedia not a bad thing. And is rarely permanent. If you decide you want to stay (or come back), count on me to help. I see that another administrator (my Aunty Val) has said something encouraging below. If we didn't care we would have stayed silent. Stay in touch. I honestly think we could work this out in short order. Val and I aren't going anywhere. BusterD (talk) 15:15, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- +1. Next few times you order something you consider a traditional food of Romania -- or encounter it at a celebration and think, yup, that's what we always expect to eat at a wedding or on New Year's or whatever -- see if it's got an article. If it doesn't, come back here and ping me. I'd love to improve our coverage of Romanian food and drink. Valereee (talk) 15:25, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- Stepping away from Wikipedia not a bad thing. And is rarely permanent. If you decide you want to stay (or come back), count on me to help. I see that another administrator (my Aunty Val) has said something encouraging below. If we didn't care we would have stayed silent. Stay in touch. I honestly think we could work this out in short order. Val and I aren't going anywhere. BusterD (talk) 15:15, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
Romanian football edit
Hey, Dante! I wanted to comment on this edit, where you said Romanian Football is what I follow. It's the only subject I am knowledgeable about. It's the only subject I can write about in a foreign language. I can't and I refuse to edit on subjects I don't fully know.
I do understand what you are saying, but I'd like to push back a little. Romanian football may be the only passionate interest you have, but that level of interest may actually be what's causing your difficulty in editing collaboratively. Sometimes it can be better to edit where you don't feel quite so personally involved. And you don't actually have to be an expert on something in order to write about it. You only have to be able to find sources and summarize what they're saying.
Here's just a for-instance that happens to be in my own wheelhouse: food. Every single one of us eats, and if you're in Romania, you probably eat a lot of Romanian food. Compare the foods listed at Category:Romanian_cuisine with Category:Belgian cuisine. The countries are of similar size, but our coverage of Belgian foods is far more comprehensive. Likely because Belgium has a very high number of English speakers and the vast majority of coverage is in the same alphabet that English speakers use, which means someone like me can search it easily.
I imagine there are similar discrepancies in film or books or holidays or literally any societal/cultural topic. And you can find those sources because you don't have to deal with transliteration, and you're in a much better position to assess those sources for their reliability. I would have zero idea about the reliability of various Romanian sources.
I hope this is helpful rather than otherwise. Valereee (talk) 12:27, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
Purpose of Wikipedia edit
"The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith; and good faith actions, where disruptive, may still result in sanctions." Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals#Purpose_of_Wikipedia, Passed 15 to 0 at 21:46, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
There are many versions but they all say the same thing. This means we are all here for the same reason. To make a book. The biggest book you can imagine. A book so gigantic it will never be complete. A book which lists everything a human being needs to know about every topic. A book written in every language. A book which is free to everyone who can find it. One of the most important books ever written. And you were editing it.
I take that seriously. And so do my many friends. Do you think mankind should have a book like the one we're all building together? If you do, read The Five Pillars of Wikipedia. Don't just go there, read it. Read it again. Click on every link and read every one. Then go back to The Five Pillars, and read it again. BusterD (talk) 20:30, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Topic ban enacted edit
Per consensus at the administrator's noticeboard (permanent link), the following topic ban has been enacted:
- Dante4786 is topic-banned from pages involving FC Steaua București, broadly construed, for six months.
Please read Wikipedia:Banning policy#Topic ban, Wikipedia:Banning policy#Exceptions to limited bans and Wikipedia:Banning policy#Evasion and enforcement.
Details regarding appealing a community-imposed topic ban are contained at Wikipedia:Banning policy#Appeals of bans imposed by the community. This topic ban will be logged at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions.
Mentorship and similar arrangements edit
In certain limited circumstances, formal mentorship and similar voluntary and involuntary arrangements, may be suitable to provide advice and support to people involved in disputes, or needing advice on how to work collaboratively on Wikipedia. The long-term aim of such arrangements should be for those involved to improve their conduct and work collaboratively without the need, or with a reduced need, for such advice. Such mentorships or similar arrangements may be agreed to as an alternative to more serious remedies, such as bans or paroles, or they may be an end result of the dispute resolution process itself. Users may voluntarily place themselves under such arrangements, or be placed under such arrangements by the community, or by a ruling of the Arbitration Committee. Any such formal arrangements should be recorded and documented in an appropriate place.
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse#Mentorship and similar arrangements; Passed 10 to 0 at 04:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
People learn in different modalities. Some best get material through reading, some pickup quicker with visuals, charts and descriptive images. I like things explained to me. Because there are so many possible ways of learning, it's useful to try several to see what works best for you. I like the mentor-mentee relationships. I choose to exercise my behavior based on models which which work for others. I look to editors I admire, usually people who have demonstrated trust in me.
I choose to use a pen-name, a Wikipedia-only name, to keep my focus on principles, not personalities (I think this is a twelve-step thing.) I'm not here for the glory or any merit badges; I'm here for the labor, the work. In this, I reveal my idealism, which I think a healthy approach.
For the record, you are permitted to edit everywhere on Wikipedia except as proscribed above. I instruct any banned editor that creating a new account (sockpuppetry) or editing under an ip (ban avoidance) will not avail them. Editors are pretty sharp in these interest areas. Ban avoidance would be noticed.
So I am here. I am offering to mentor you. I am qualified and I am willing. I would teach, and you would learn. If you agree, you will act under my supervision. That means if you choose to act in a flakey manner, it will reflect badly on ME. If you choose not to agree, that's okay too. This is an open offer, and need not be redeemed at this time. Enjoy your wikibreak, and I hope you edit boldly when you return. BusterD (talk) 19:22, 10 February 2024 (UTC)