User talk:Andriabenia

Archives:

Archive 1

Welcome

Hello, Andriabenia, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits to the page Georgia (country) have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may be removed if they have not yet been. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles. As well, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 15:01, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Medea Japaridze

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Medea Japaridze requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Funnyfarmofdoom _{(talk to me)} 20:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removing Speedy at Medea Japaridze

Welcome to Wikipedia, thank you for taking the time to create a page here. It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed a speedy deletion tag from a page you created yourself. Because Wikipedia policy does not allow the creator of the page to remove deletion tags, an automated program has replaced the deletion tag you removed from Medea Japaridze. Please do not continue to remove the deletion tag, instead, if you disagree with the deletion, you can follow these steps:

Go to the page by clicking this link. Once there, select the button that says Click here to contest this speedy deletion.
This will take you to the talk page, where you can make your case by explaining why the page does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion.

Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do. For further help about the deletion, you could contact the user who first placed the tag or a highly active user who is willingly to help with deletion. This message was left by a bot, so please do not contact the bot about the deletion. Thank you, - SDPatrolBot (talk) 20:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Headers and sections in SPI cases

Please do not use custom headers and sections in SPI cases, as it messes with the table of contents on WP:SPI. I have removed the headers [1] [2] from your comments, but left the comments otherwise untouched. Thank you. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 14:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Notice of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mathsci (talk) 13:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tornike

Hello! You still miss the point: a) you are guessing as to what the name might mean by isolating one element of it, which is original research and b) this is a futile exercise since, as I said already, the entire name represents the hellenized form of a Caucasian name, since the first Tornikios was a Georgian/Armenian prince. It is therefore unlikely that the name is supposed to have any meaning in Greek. The error is compounded by confusing the Greek and Georgian forms: the Greek form is Tornikios, not Tornike, hence "nike" doesn't appear in the name at all. True, the "nikios" element could result from nike, but you can take my word for it as a native Greek-speaker that this isn't the case here. Rather the original name, probably something like "Tornik", was hellenized through the addition of "ikios". Cheers, Constantine ✍ 14:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Attaching "Nike" at the end of names is a common practice in Georgia, as proven by the new source I added. The name itself is not Greek, it merely incorporates it, that is why I changed the text to "influenced by Greek." This is actually what the source says, so no original research.--Andriabenia (talk) 14:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, I can't read Georgian, so I can't judge on the accuracy of your source. However, the examples you cite are wrong: "Andronike" is a perfectly good Greek name (Ανδρονίκη), and "Kalenike" (probably a corruption of something like Καλλινίκη) likewise. It would seem that these names were taken wholesale into Georgian, and not modified at all. The ending therefore is not "added" in Georgian, but taken over from the original Greek names. "Tornike" isn't Greek, period. Constantine ✍ 14:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I never said Tornike was Greek, the sources says that it is a Georgian name that mimics Greek names like Andronike and Kalenike. I could not think of that word in English but this discussion brought it to my head. I will changed the article to reflect this and perhaps that will clear things up.--Andriabenia (talk) 14:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me make myself clear: the whole "nike" addition is useless and misleading. The article writes that a) "Nike is often used in Georgia as a name ending" and b) that "Tornike can be interpreted as "the victorious one"". The first seems to be irrelevant since the examples cited are taken straight from Greek and barely modified to fit Georgian phonology hence have nothing to do specifically with the Georgian language. In other words, if many Georgian names were adopted from Greek, then of course "nike" would be a common element. It does not follow that it has a specific meaning, or that it was "added" to the name by the Georgians: the succession is *Tornik->Tornikios->Tornike. The Greek ending was "Georgianized", that is all. Point b) is the main problem, since as I stated, the name is not supposed to have any meaning in Greek. From what I can make out (via Google Translate) from the website, it asserts that the "nike" element is Greek and gives other Greek names as examples, not "like Greek" or "mimicking Greek". Unless in Georgian a name with "nike" at its end has something to do with victory, the suggested etymology is simply wrong. The form "Tornike" may or may not be intended to mimic Greek names adopted into Georgian and ending in "-nike" (which is not what the site says), but mimicking the phonetic form isn't the same as carrying over the meaning from another language. For instance, William in Greek is "Γουλιέλμος" (Ghoulielmos), taken via Latin Gulielmus from French Guillaume and ultimately German Wilhelm. No one would go about seeking any meaning in the "-elmus" cluster from Latin. You would have to go to the original root to find any meaning, and in our case this is the tentative "*Tornik-" element. Anything else is a paretymology. Constantine ✍ 15:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Hi. You appear to be involved to be edit warring on List of sovereign states and dependent territories. Please stop this. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 05:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Noe Zhordania (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Île-de-France

Tumanishvili (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Tumanyan

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

SPI report

Please do not edit my section again. You have done so twice and it is not up to you how I choose to display my comments. I have informed one of the SPI clerks. You are getting close to edit warring on that page. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 18:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Satt 2 SPI case

Stop edit warring over the hatnotes. You've already broken WP:3RR (1, 2, 3) so the next reversion will be a block. Wikipedians understand condensed notes - and they're Mathsci's notes that are being condensed, anyway, so it doesn't affect your side of the case. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

January 2012

Your recent editing history at List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Europe shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. -- DQ (t) (e) 19:19, 8 January 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have been blocked for two weeks for edit warring but it appears that I have been re-blocked indefinitely by user HelloAnyond as a sockpuppet, despite lack of clear evidence. The puppet-master Satt 2 appears to have many socks but this is not an excuse for blocking unrelated users as a preventive measure. The "behavioral evidence" which is cited in my block can apply to just about anyone with similar interests on wikipedia. For reasons I explained on the investigation page, all the other "evidence" is similarly ridiculous and personally-motivated on the part of user:mathsci--Andriabenia (talk) 22:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Care to explain this? Max Semenik (talk) 22:43, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was an unfortunate, politically-motivated edit,which I reversed once I became aware of potential consequences. What does this have to do with the sockpuppetry case?--Andriabenia (talk) 23:45, 17 January 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

The previous administrator brought up an unrelated edit which cannot in any way serve as a proof of sock-puppetry. Indefinite block for that edit alone is unwarranted.

Decline reason:

I reviewed the SPI and defer to HelloAnnyong's conclusion since I know him and trust him. — Daniel Case (talk) 02:48, 18 January 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

Daniel Case, this is not about you trusting HelloAnnyong or being his friend. It is a matter of blocking without sufficient evidence. I have not seen a shred of evidence that would implicate me as someone's sock; all the SPI "evidence" against me is so overgeneralized that it can apply to just about anyone with similar interests. I am convinced that you did not thoroughly read the SPI because the "behavioral evidence" provided there is refuted word by word.

Decline reason:

First of all, I have looked at the editing history, and I find persuasive evidence that you are not, as you claim, new to editing Wikipedia. This includes both the evidence presented at the SPI and other evidence which was not mentioned there, and which I am not detailing for beans reasons. Which other account(s) you have used is a secondary issue: the fact that you are attempting to hide the fact that you have used one or more other accounts is sufficient. Secondly, contrary to what you evidently think, in assessing an unblock request administrators are not restricted to considering only the reason cited in the block log. Rather, an administrator should consider all relevant history. The question is not whether the specific reason given by the blocking administrator fully justifies the block, but rather whether the block is fully justified. In this case we have an editor with a substantial history of contentious and disruptive editing. This has included persistent edit warring on more than one page, continuing in defiance of the knowledge that what you were doing was contrary to Wikipedia's accepted standards. It has included a generally aggressive and battleground approach, with no attempt to collaborate with others with whom you disagree. It has included at least one grossly offensive personal attack. Perhaps most strikingly of all, you have stated that you reverted that attack "once [you] became aware of potential consequences", indicating that you think it is all right to use Wikipedia for such purposes as long as you can get away with it. What is more, you made that statement in an unblock request, indicating that you are completely blind to the fact that that is evidence against you, not for you. The long and the short of all this is that, even if we were to dismiss the sockpuppet issue, there would still remain more than enough reason for you to remain blocked. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:20, 19 January 2012 (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.