User talk:Giorgi Balakhadze/Archive 3

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Abkhazia infobox RfC set up

I have created an RfC following the previous creation of a vote section here, and have copied your initial statement from the previous section into it as it seems applicable. If you wish to amend or remove your statement from this new section, please feel free to do so. I have not copied responses down, so if you wish to copy your response or add a new response to the RfC please do that too. Regards, CMD (talk) 12:36, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked editors (original discussion)

Blocked editors are not allowed to get around their blocks through sockpuppetry. You say you've read WP:EVADE; if you have you will have noted how minor the example contributions that are considered potentially worth keeping (typo fixes and vandalism reversion) are. If you feel blocked editors should be allowed to contribute to Wikipedia, you need to propose a change in policy. CMD (talk) 22:19, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CMD do not make accents that he is blocked. WP:EVADE says "This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a blocked editor obviously helpful changes can be allowed to stand", so what has he made wrong in his contribution in the talk page? He wrote an argument about issue on which most voters agree. You are misunderstanding WP:EVADE. I don't want to start edit war with you so be patient, to solve this I think will be better if we call administrators for detailed explanation of the rule.--g. balaxaZe★ 22:27, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CMD and please stop reverts (or pushing your edits) before issue is solved! --g. balaxaZe★ 22:28, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The misunderstading of what it means to be blocked is on your end. You are welcome to call upon other users and administrators regarding this matter. Whether a blocked user's opinion is popular or not is quite irrelevant to whether they're evading a block or not. CMD (talk) 22:31, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Chipmunkdavis: I am not talking with my decisions, I am showing to you that it is written in the rule. You have no right to remove their contribution just because they were previously blocked unless you won't explain why his edits were obviously unhelpful or irrelevant.--g. balaxaZe★ 22:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Chipmunkdavis: WP:EVADE says: but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert. So I am giving you an opportunity to explain to me what you have seen ambiguous in his edit. If not I will revert your remove and in case of another revert by you I will call for Admins reaction.--g. balaxaZe★ 22:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This editor is not just previously blocked, but has been blocked indefinitely from 2010 onwards. As I noted in edit summaries, there is nothing ambiguous in talkpage comments. They are clearly and unambiguously not a change to an article, and were made in violation to a long-standing block. WP:EVADE presumes reversion to be the default response. I encourage you again to reach out for further opinions if you do not understand this. CMD (talk) 22:50, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Chipmunkdavis: So according you when a blocked editor's contribution is not in an article you must always revert it? Show me where is this written please.--g. balaxaZe★ 22:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked editors should not be editing, as they are blocked. Please read over Wikipedia:Sock puppetry for a full explanation of this. CMD (talk) 23:01, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Chipmunkdavis: So I've read Wikipedia:Sock puppetry and didn't find there any sentence that justifies your "blind reverts" of User:Damianmx contributions. I will underline You just simply reverted most of his contributions without factual reason or explanation why they are obviously unhelpful or irrelevant. This is definitely not from WP:GOODFAITH guideline part.--g. balaxaZe★ 17:45, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I've stated, you do not understand WP:EVADE, which is written with the presumption of reversion, given the principle that blocked editors are blocked and therefore should not edit. Good faith is not assumed of sockpuppets, as they are evading blocks, and therefore not operating in good faith. CMD (talk) 17:50, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I understood that they shouldn't edit (and he is blocked now again) but if he made good edit WP:EVADE clarifies that you shouldn't revert them just because he was blocked previously. I do not know I think will be better to call for an admin to explain who is wrong in this situation. --g. balaxaZe★ 17:54, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I have already informed you, the type of edits that EVADE suggests leaving include typos and vandalism reversion. I will also inform you again that the editor under discussion wasn't merely "blocked previously", but was blocked at the time they made those edits. I will further again encourage you to contact others, as you have said you would do already, as it is clear I have not been able to explain the situation to you. CMD (talk) 18:09, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Chipmunkdavis:, I'd like to point out that he's doing the same on the Georgia (country) article as well. Obviously said user doesn't grasp the whole purpose of WP:EVADE and the fact that Satt2 has absolutely no place here on Wikipedia given that he's been socking since 2010. He's basically justifying his socking activities with the reinstatement of his edits. I suggest reporting him to ANI if this continues. There might be some WP:CANVAS/WP:STEALTH going on here as well. - LouisAragon (talk) 13:50, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@LouisAragon: I really hate such "games" when someone plays so unfair like you. I've told you that you reverted not only his edits but also mine — why?! and also you restored badly described materials which are sometimes unsourced. It will be better to say that you revert his edits because you personally disagree with him than for policies. If so Wikipedia should revert automatically all his edits but it doesn't happen, according it has no sense what he contributed but it 100% should be reverted. That is really nonsense good contributions should stay. --g. balaxaZe★ 13:58, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I checked everything. Your contributions are maybe ~ 5% of the content you reinstated. The utter vast majority had been originally added by Damianmx aka Satt 2. Want me to add all the diffs here that prove this? Also, the climatological/topographic maps which I presume you had added are irridentist, as it shows Abhkazia and South Ossetia being a part of Georgia, which they are currently not. Or are there any other matters that were removed by me that were originally added by you? Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 14:02, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it is 5% why you have reverted with no reason? And as I said I have mixed materials so we can find compromise and edit my restores not just simply removing whole.--g. balaxaZe★ 14:05, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Mixed materials?" Can you please simply eloborate what this miniscule amounts of additions are that you would like to have reinstated? If that material that you want to have re-added ain't Satt 2/Damianmx material, or matters regarding irridentist maps, I have no objections obviously. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 14:08, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and I see your bias yeah Abhkazia and South Ossetia being a part of Georgia which they are currently not ?! Sorry but Wikipedia should not dance for Russians propaganda. THIS ARTICLE IS ABOUT GEORGIA IN ITS INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNIZED BORDERS AND EVERYONE MUST ADMIT THIS.--g. balaxaZe★ 14:09, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understand you feel strongly about this matter, however Wikipedia and caps-lock aren't the appropriate ways to express your concerns about this. - LouisAragon (talk) 14:17, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

June 2016

Your recent editing history at Georgia (country) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that 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. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Your continued pattern of reinstating content added by a long-term sock abuser (Satt 2/Damianmx) through the means of edit warring is conflicting with Wikipedia's policies. Furthermore, even though you were reverted and told not to do so, you're still continuing to edit war and reinstate the content that's almost completely written by a CU blocked sock. - LouisAragon (talk) 14:22, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are lying I restored not only his but my and other users edits which you removed without any word of explanation. You try to push your POV hidden under Wikipedia policies. --g. balaxaZe★ 14:28, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to assume good faith. There is no need to assume nefarious motives just because someone disagrees with you. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 15:23, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. - LouisAragon (talk) 14:40, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia (country)

Please do not make any more reverts at this article. I see you have been warned for edit-warring and have ceased to revert, which is good. Take your arguments to the talk page and allow other editors to form a consensus. --John (talk) 23:18, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John I won't revert but user LouisAragon also must stop his disregardant reverts of the material that is really informative and helpful for the article's content. --g. balaxaZe★ 01:20, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

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.

--John (talk) 12:34, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Transnistria

Transnistria is recognized by Abkhazia, Nagorno-Karabakh and South Ossetia. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_limited_recognition Woodgridge (talk) 23:05, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia map

Placing maps without disputed borders can go against NPOV. If there are issues with the administrative divisions you can request a change on Commons, or better yet if you know how to then you can change it yourself. Don't insert maps that are not neutral instead. Thanks. --Turnless (talk) 20:23, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By answering to your comment about my edits being controversial, it is quite the opposite. My edits show neutrality as they have disputed dashed borders while you inserted a map that does not reflect neutrality. Also, the map clearly shows political divisions, so yes inserting disputed boundaries is necessary as that is NPOV. As for any issues you may have I already said that you can go to Commons. Maps that are against NPOV is a far larger issue than a small internal border misrepresentation which could be easily fixed if you ask someone experienced on Commons. --Turnless (talk) 20:31, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As per your most recent comment, I assume you are referring commons:COM:OVERWRITE. That policy is against the changing of significant and major information to the files. Adding an internal border that was originally shown inaccurately is not against that policy so once again, you are free to go to Commons and request for someone to fix the map. --Turnless (talk) 20:36, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not misrepresentation but all region is disappeared. And tell me please where are those policies that strengthen your words.--g. balaxaZe★ 20:37, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I've already created good map for Wiki and someone tries to remove it from use. Go and edit yourself your preferred map if you wish. Until it has mistake you are supporting wrong information and it is more damaging than disputed areas which are on many maps as well.--g. balaxaZe★ 20:40, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am a geographer and for me every wrong line is important on the map.--g. balaxaZe★ 20:42, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, the map has a misrepresentation of internal borders. I checked which border you are talking about and it is quite small and not at all a reason for removal of map. I do not know how to edit topography maps which is why I said it would be better to ask someone else. The map you are inserting is POV pushing as disputed borders are absent. Those borders are way more noticeable than the small border you are talking about, which once again should not be too difficult to fix for someone who has the knowledge of working with topography maps. I am also a perfectionist when it comes to maps, which is why I encourage you to bring this issue up on Commons, but do not change it to a map that is not neutral. --Turnless (talk) 20:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is not so easy to edit raster map, it is not only one single program to use for it. As I said relief has nothing with politics, borders are shown just for better visualization, if you want relief maps of Abkhazia or SO you can find them easy, this map is about Georgia and not about Georiga and disputed areas or something else. Political maps are another case.--g. balaxaZe★ 20:51, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If for you disappearing of two regions is nothing, you should stop arguing about maps. --g. balaxaZe★ 20:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is in fact also a political map because it shows political division so showing disputed regions does not hurt. There are users on Commons who can fix maps like these. Please just go ahead and bring the issue up, I am certain someone will respond and help you out. Also, I never said that for me the disappearance of two regions is "nothing" which is why I am suggesting asking someone to fix it. If you have anything more to discuss I hope you wouldn't mind continuing in a couple of hours as I am quite busy at the moment. Thanks. --Turnless (talk) 20:55, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am busy too. For me my relief map is quite good, if you are so interested you are free to ask to fix that. And one more, my map is more new, you can see that area of Tbilisi is larger that is real division of the country all other maps are outdated. --g. balaxaZe★ 21:02, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, because there has been another user who reverted I will move this discussion to the talk page of the article. I still encourage you to bring up the issue with the map so that someone could fix it. --Turnless (talk) 01:41, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Turnless (talk) 19:51, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 28 August

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Armenians in Samtskhe-Javakheti page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:35, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Javakheti is covered by discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBAA2

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Whether the Armenian form of a place name ought to be included in the Javakheti article falls under these sanctions. All parties are expected to edit with care on topics like this, due to the risk that people might have nationalist motivations for their changes. Your changing the name of South Ossetia within its article also looks peculiar. A pattern of pro-Georgian editing (on your part) might raise our eyebrows. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 01:20, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: it was not changing of the name, original text was with Tskhinvali Region--g. balaxaZe★ 07:41, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For your attention

Identical edits, different editing accounts: [1], [2]. Note that the first edit was reverted with the warning that faking references on Wikipedia is a serious offense. Aside from the natural suspicion that these two accounts might be linked, the warning I gave for the first edit applies to your edit too. The Marutyan reference is for the content that I have now restored, not the content that you and the first editor added. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 13:28, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bzyb Range () listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Bzyb Range (). Since you had some involvement with the Bzyb Range () redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 16:54, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Giorgi Balakhadze. 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abkhazian Orthodox Cathedrals

Wikipedia must maintain neutrality, There is an Abkhazian Orthodox Church--Warairarepano&Guaicaipuro (talk) 21:38, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Warairarepano&Guaicaipuro: That's why! Georgian Orthodox Church and all Orthodox churches (all world churches in general) do not recognize that, so it is POV to say that they have their church and cathedrals because technically you do not represent other churches' view.--g. balaxaZe★ 22:10, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. About your personal attacks. - LouisAragon (talk) 03:35, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]