User talk:Bdragomir

December 2024

Hello, I'm Myrealnamm. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Klaus Iohannis 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. Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 14:26, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

if you do not follow news STOP EDITING PAGES! i AM MAKING LEGIT CHANGES for historical accuracy. I don't care for your political inclinations but read or just stop changing pages as you think they are correct! Thank you Bdragomir (talk) 14:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can we just stop wasting time and ban Bdragomir already? Vellutis (talk) 19:31, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed to @Vellutis

the language used and the modifications are abusive and false. AK (talk) 01:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Klaus Iohannis. 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. Thank you. paul2520 💬 14:46, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The edits are backed by references, I don't care for your politics but DO NOT use wikipedia to push a political agenda. Refrain from reverting changes unless deemed inaccurate the ones I made are backed by references verifiable ones too Bdragomir (talk) 14:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We should allow arbitration decide is wikipedia articles should be accurate and in sync with the truth based on verifiable sources or false based on hunches. Thank you Bdragomir (talk) 15:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you may be blocked from editing. Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 15:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

let's let wikipedia decide if they think the articles should stay true to reality based on verifiable sources or paint false pictures based on hunches. Thank you Bdragomir (talk) 15:26, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

You have recently made edits related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe. This is a standard message to inform you that the Balkans or Eastern Europe is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. SerialNumber54129^{A New Face in Hell} 16:00, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

SerialNumber54129^{A New Face in Hell} 16:00, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute Resolution

Hi Bdragomir,

I understand your passionate about Romanian topics and also understand that you believe your edits are in good faith, however, as you see above others disagree and that's okay, it happens.

Unfortunately, it seems you have gone directly for the nuclear option of raising an Arbitration case, this is the absolute last stop in the dispute resolution process where you have skipped over a whole load of options. Let me assist you with what you should do next:

1. All content and conduct issues should be discussed first at the talk page of the relevant article or user before requesting dispute resolution. So in this case, using the article from above, that would be Talk:Klaus Iohannis, and looking at your contribs, Talk:Antena 1 (Romania)

2. If posting on the talk page leads to no avail, then the next step is to look on WP:DRR. These are to be done one at a time, not all at once, but can be done in any order. I'll summarize here:

2.1: Third Opinion, if your disagreement is with a single editor, then Third Opinion can help you settle the matter be asking an uninvolved party to look a the edits 2.1.1: If your disagreement is with more than one editor, then Mediation is the way to go

2.2: There are specialized noticeboards for different types of edits, I haven't looked at your edits, so only you'll know if they will apply

2.3: You can raise a Request For Comment which will get you answers/opinions from many Wikipedians.

2.4: You can add a post on to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard

3: Only after all these avenues have failed (which does not mean 'Bdragomir gets their way'), then, and only then, you may raise an Arbitration case.

Hope that helps with your next steps.

- Rich^T|C|E-Mail 16:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request for arbitration declined

Hi Bdragomir. In response to your request for arbitration, the Arbitration Committee has decided that arbitration is not required at this stage. Arbitration on Wikipedia is a lengthy, complicated process that involves the unilateral adjudication of a dispute by an elected committee. Although the Committee's decisions can be useful to certain disputes, in many cases the actual process of arbitration is unenjoyable and time-consuming. Moreover, for most disputes the community maintains an effective set of mechanisms for reaching a compromise or resolving a grievance.

Disputes among editors regarding the content of an article should use structured discussion on the talk page between the disputing editors. However, requests for comment, third opinions and other venues are available if discussion alone does not yield a consensus. The dispute resolution noticeboard also exists as a method of resolving content disputes that aren't easily resolved with talk page discussion.

In all cases, you should review Wikipedia:Dispute resolution to learn more about resolving disputes on Wikipedia. The English Wikipedia community has many venues for resolving disputes and grievances, and it is important to explore them instead of requesting arbitration in the first instance. For more information on the process of arbitration, please see the Arbitration Policy and the Guide to Arbitration. I hope this advice is useful, and please do not hesitate to contact me or a member of the community if you have more questions. SilverLocust 💬 18:41, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]