User talk:Obitauri

Welcome!

Hello, Obitauri, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ~~~~, which will automatically produce your name and the date.

If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

meco (talk) 07:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

June 2013

Hello, I'm Faizan. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made with this edit to Matsun, because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Fai zan 11:28, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or significantly change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did with this edit to Matsun. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Fai zan 11:32, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Entry at World War II Casualties

Please provide a reliable source for this entry you made. [1] --Woogie10w (talk) 14:51, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:Citation needed -Also please remember Wikipeia cannot be used as a source, thanks--Woogie10w (talk) 15:17, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Your recent editing history at Matzoon (yogurt) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. 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. - DVdm (talk) 15:43, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note - see also User talk:DVdm#what?, which contains advice for you as well. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 15:54, 19 June 2013 (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. - DVdm (talk) 20:12, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What I did wrong puting new sources? Before I did wrong thing and I got warn for it, I just put something corrected now, what rule I broke just show me and I will read all rules --Obitauri (talk) 21:07, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a matter of sources anymore. As I explained in my message above, you should have used the article talk page and discuss to reach consensus, or failing that, go to dispute resolution. You can now also also comment on the report entry at wp:AN3. Lori-m already has commented there. No need to put comments on my talk page. Good luck. - DVdm (talk) 06:26, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

I noticed that you're fairly new around here, and recently got hit with an edit warring report. Just so you know, the rule that you broke was WP:3RR which states that you're not supposed to revert other people's edits more than 3 times in a 24 hour period, otherwise you can get blocked. If you're interested in learning some of the other rules and guidelines, I highly recommend perusing WP:Identifying reliable sources, WP:Original research, WP:Neutral point of view, and WP:Verifiability. Even if you just click on each of the links and read the "nutshell" bit at the top, that will help a lot. Anyway, please let me know if you need any help or have any questions. You can contact me here or on my talk page. ~Adjwilley (talk) 06:12, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Matzoon (yogurt). This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Please read the rule WP:PROVEIT and WP:VANDALISM--Lori-m (talk) 10:00, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

July 2013

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Matsoni. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. - DVdm (talk) 16:29, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note. The article was redirected to Matzoon (yogurt), because the original article does not contain any source for its content: none of the sources say that the product is of Georgian origin. This has been explained many times to you. Please stop. - DVdm (talk) 16:29, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Matsoni. DVdm (talk) 16:35, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User Obitauri undoing redirect to unsourced article. - DVdm (talk) 18:52, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Block notice

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours 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 adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, 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.

Bishonen | talk 23:04, 16 July 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Block?

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).

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

Request reason:

I didnt broke 3 revert rule. I have not reverted 3 edits in 24 hours. You can check more accurately Obitauri (talk) 23:07, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You were blocked for edit-warring, not for violation of the three revert rule. The difference between the two is actually explained in the previous warning you received for edit-warring less than a month ago. Specifically "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". Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 23:23, 16 July 2013 (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.

Stop!

I see you have a history of blocks for edit warring. Only 4% of Georgia is on European side of the boundary of the 2 continents. Policital or cultural distinctions are not relevant. Please desist.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:23, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Culturally Russia, Georgia and Armenia, also Cyprus (is also in European Union) are considered as European countries culturally. Also here are other border variants of Europe and Asia. Also Georgia, and Russia haves naturally European characters. Also nationally Europeans --Obitauri (talk) 13:35, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The United Nations classifies Georgia as part of West Asia. 96% of Georgia is on the Asian tectonic plate. Regardless of how much you think Georgia is 'similar to European countries', the simple fact is that it is part of Asia. If other countries in Asia were to adopt a culture similar to European countries, it does not change the fact that they are part of Asia. 'European' is not a nationality.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:44, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes European is nationality. Georgian people are considered as Europeids, also known as "Caucasoids". Here are Alpine types of Georgians mainly. --Obitauri (talk) 10:56, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you may have some language difficulties here.

European is not a nationality, because Europe isn't a nation. It is a continent.

Much of the Caucasus (a region) is located on the Asian continent.

Europeids isn't even a word.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At the ANI you attempted to draw a comparison with Russia (after telling another editor to "learn English", which you could also improve.) I would generally also classify Russia as predominantly Asia. However, most of Russia's population does live in the European part, so it is arguable in some contexts to list it as Europe. This does not apply to Georgia, where most of the population lives on the Asian continent. There are no major population centres in the European part of Georgia.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:27, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In most of lists Georgia is counted in East Europe. Example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_Heritage_Sites_in_Eastern_Europe

Also no matter how much part of country is in "Continental Europe or Asia". If this Georgia got land in Europe, no matter how many, we have to decide its LOCATION by cultural issues. With cultural issues and national issues, Georgia is flesh and blood Europe. Also place where all this started is Jehovah's witnesses by Nationality list. Religion is cultural condition, not geographical. Also this article was in category "Jehovah's witnesses by Nationality". Category shows national issues, so Georgia is culturally and nationally European, as well as it haves some land in Europe, it must be listed in Europe as well as in other articles is. You also ignored some facts I brought in discuss, better read them --Obitauri (talk) 13:32, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of World Heritage Sites in Eastern Europe actually states: "The Caucasus countries Georgia and Azerbaijan are not included here but in Western Asia."

Irrespective of how much you think Georgia is 'culturally' European, the fact remains that it is mostly (96%) in Asia. If you are offended by the idea that Georgia is in Asia, that is a personal problem you need to sort out for yourself. There is no such thing as "nationally European".--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:40, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes here is such thing. Do you know what "Caucasoid" even means? Also check here, Georgia in list of European countries: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_Heritage_Sites Also its not my personal issue, no matter how much land is in "Continental EUROPE" of Georgia. Its still in Europe with some land, also culture and People are European. See when you say: No cultural European? Then why Armenia is counted as European country when it got no land in Europe? Cause strong similarity to Europe and also cultural European country. Then how you say here is nothing like Cultural European when wikipedia agrees this too? Georgia is same here but it ALSO haves land in so called "Continental Europe" --Obitauri (talk) 13:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Armenia is not geographically in Europe. It may be a member of various organisations in the region, but anywhere that says it is in Europe would be wrong. Only a very small part of Georgia (4% and virtually unpopulated) is in Europe. It is not clear why this upsets you so much. It is a quite simple fact.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:01, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:34, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obitauri, the discussion linked above is about administrative action. You are posting long, long screeds of text about your content dispute but that is NOT what AN/I is for. You should post content discussions at the article talk page. Please don't extend the content discussion at AN/I; focus instead on what admin action is necessary - 0r in defending yourself against any proposed admin action. Arguing that your content is correct is NOT going to defend you if your actions are otherwise a problem. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 11:30, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When I removed your latest posting from WP:ANI, it was for several reasons: you were messing up the page formatting, you were – again, despite warnings – continuing the content dispute in an inappropriate place, and your posting was severely incivil. Really, telling another user to "learn English" is something that you, of all people, really ought not to do (are you seriously not aware how poor your own English is?)

You need to stop being disruptive here, or you will be blocked from editing again. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:31, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You dont decide if I will be blocked or not. I removed this saying "learn English" --Obitauri (talk) 13:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for For edit warring on the location of Georgia.. 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 adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. regentspark (comment) 13:59, 22 July 2013 (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).

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

Request reason:

I was NOT Edit warring. I was just discussing it and after I discussed and prove something I just edited article. Where I did edit warring what reason is this? AGain this no reason block, if not unblocked its senseless website I will quit and leave like this is now, with nonsense fake articles sometimes I meet Obitauri (talk) 14:01, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You were quite unambiguously edit warring. As said below, that you proved something to your own satisfaction is not sufficient. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:13, 22 July 2013 (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.

I'll let some other admin address your unblock request but let me point out that you need to read WP:CONSENSUS. It is not a question of 'prove something' to yourself and then add that something to the article. You need to make sure that others find these proofs (hopefully in the form of reliable sources) convincing as well. --regentspark (comment) 14:10, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Friend, edit warring isn't going to help you, Wikipedia isn't about right or wrong, it is about consensus, which means how a majority of policy compliant editors judge an issue. I think if you undertake to not edit war that is revert etc, you would be unblocked, there bunch (replace it with a more appropriate common noun) of editors who agree that your actions need sanctions, you would get unblocked only when you see yourself from their perspective and undertake to take corrective measures. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

Obitauri: As for as Olympics is concerned, or football for that matter, Georgia is an European country. So case by case Georgia could be European or Asian etc. I saw your edit related to Jehovah's Witnesses, in which you placed from West Asia to Europe. I wonder how the JW organisation places Georgia, if it places Georgia in Europe, we too could place it in Europe. Please discuss on talk pages before making editing changes and respect the consensus. Wikipedia isn't cast in concrete, wait for the consensus to change. Hope whatever I've said is useful. Don't take the block personally. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:56, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Based on that 'logic' (about the Olympics), Israel is also "European".[2] Except we all know it's not. It's just included in a broader region for convenience.

Fault lines in contintental plates aren't about to shift just because Obitauri wants them to. There is no point trying to 'help' Obitauri to 'work around the system', as that won't resolve the underlying problem of edit-warring about topics related to Georgia in general.

Of course the block isn't personal. None of the editors know Obitauri personally. Giving him bad advice won't help.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:34, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia is not mentioned often in JW literature, however the 1999 Yearbook of Jehovah's Witnesses explicitly listed Georgia under the subheading Asia (page 50) and not Europe (pages 56-60).--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:46, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not only that, but that logic (using the football bit) would also suggest that Australia is in Asia... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:56, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New publitions of Jehovah's witnesses puts Georgia in Europe. In 1999 Georgia was non-democratic, messed up country. After 2003 it was developed. Also as of your logics, Israel culturally is not European. Also Israel does NOT haves land in Europe, when Georgia haves land in so called "continental Europe". Also its historically European country. Demographic studies say, that Georgian people are "Caucasoids" also known as "Europeids". Word Caucasoid also shows that Europen people's ancestors came from Caucasus. Also oldest prehistoric human in Europe is found in Georgia. Just don't ignore all facts I said before. You just pick up some sentences I said and then "catch my words" and then you "are proving Georgia is in Asia based on my "caught words"". --Obitauri (talk) 13:15, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, they don't. Georgia has not changed its geographical location since 1999. And stop relying on the silly argument that 'Georgia has land in Europe'. You're trying to justify your argument on an essentially unpopulated 4% of the country.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It may be worth knowing where the Georgian government itself and the EU place Georgia. Any idea? This information may constitute a convincing argument one way or the other.OrangesRyellow (talk) 13:53, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Georgian goverment itself places in Europe. EU also does it. I dont know where this sources come from, probably form old sources from like 1990s or before 2003... --Obitauri (talk) 14:05, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not aware of an official statement from the Georgian government or the EU. However, Georgia's international dialling code is +995. Countries in Central, South and Western Asia have dialling codes starting with 9. European dialling codes start with 3 or 4. See International_dialling_code.-Jeffro77 (talk) 14:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can hardly regard dialling codes as a decisive authority on this matter. But if some recent statements/evidence of the Georgian govt. and EU position could be located, I am likely to go by them.OrangesRyellow (talk) 14:13, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Copenhagen criteria, Georgia is not a candidate for membership of the EU. (See map.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:22, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, this is largely an academic excercise, because of the simple fact that Georgia is geographically part of Asia, and the issue is that Obitauri was changing insisting on changing geographical lists. He's just wrong.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:25, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The EU includes Georgia as one of the countries participating in its European Neighbourhood Policy[3]. This includes the following countries: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Egypt, Georgia, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Moldova, Morocco, Palestine, Tunisia, Ukraine. As part of the EU's "Eastern Partnership", it refers to Belarus, Ukraine and Moldova as "Eastern Europe", but refers to Georgia as part of the "Southern Caucasus", along with Armenia and Azerbaijan. This is consistent withe the geographical divisions already stated.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:48, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dialing codes means nothing. Also Georgian goverment as well as Georgian scientists dont agree this European-Asian bordering you agree here. Only this EU NP is nothing. I told you many associations taking Georgia in Europe. You are wrong here. You again ignore fact that Georgian people are Europeans. Better dont bring old sources of this borderings and also tectonic plates, Georgia is on Eurasian plate and here is no such European or Asian plate as you said yesterday. Also Georgia is NOT YET candidate of EU membership for following reasons: EU is not bordering Georgia yet cause of Russia and Turkey, which will join EU in 2014. Fault of GDP, HDI, etc. As Georgia newly got democratic goverment in 2003. Then if we talk about EU candidates, Ukraine and Belarus is not EU candidate too, are they Asian countries then?? --Obitauri (talk) 15:44, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After some digging on the net, it seems

The Georgian PM thinks that Georgia is a European country "Georgia is a European country and this country wishes to become a part of Europe. There is no alternative,"
The EU thinks Georgia is an "eastern European country" but not a "European state". [4]

I think if Georgia itself thinks that it is a European country, and the EU too agrees, there is a strong good-faith case to list Georgia as a European country. If Georgians and Europeans think that Georgia is a European country, so should we.OrangesRyellow (talk) 16:20, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The document your source cites is a highly politicised draft. Other articles on the EU website consistently refer to Georgia as the South Caucasus rather than Eastern Europe.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:15, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a European. I consider Georgia to be geographically in Asia. At the end of the day, the articles in dispute are about the geographical locations, are they not? So, to be blunt, it's utterly irrelevant what any people have said to the press - it comes down to what the maps say; and they say that Georgia is almost entirely in Asia. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:57, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No one cares where you are from here and no one cares what you think. Who made this map you say? Again people like you who thinks Georgia is in Asia. Btw check that both EU and Georgian goverment agrees Georgia is in Europe. --Obitauri (talk) 22:13, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the President of Georgia has sought to improve cultural and trade ties with the EU as part of the EU's European Neighbourhood Program has no bearing on the geographical location of Georgia. The geographical boundary has been established for hundreds of years. Additionally, the real issue is that Obitauri identifies as Georgian[5] but does not want to identify as Asian. That's all this is really about. The thing is, Obitauri is welcome to identify as whatever he likes, but Wikipedia is not censored, and doesn't need to yield to Obitauri's opinion. Obitauri should probably not contribute to articles about Georgia if he is unable to edit dispassionately.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:56, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you saw my 2 ancestries from my old userpage what is reason you brought it here. Also I can bring sources where Georgian people are considered as Europeans. Also EU and Georgian goverment telling Georgia is European country. Religion does not do anything with Geography. Also bordering wikipedia agrees is inappropritate for many scientists. I can start discssion for new borderings with sources when I get unblocked, then see our knowledge --Obitauri (talk) 12:06, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Round and round

Obitauri seems to be getting pretty frustrated with the comments here; can I suggest that people stop posting on this page? Entirely up to everybody's own choice, and I'm not saying anybody's been rude (well, except Obitauri himself in his latest reply to Luke). But remember he's confined to this page, and can't edit anything else. That can feel pretty claustrophobic. People are probably trying to help him, but it doesn't seem to be working; Obitauri's frustration seems to be mounting, and I'd hate to have to block his talkpage access for incivility. Could people just please take the page off their watchlists? The section above consists mainly of the kind of discussion that belongs on article talk, not user talk, and it can perhaps be resumed on article talk after Obitauri's block has expired. Bishonen | talk 22:38, 23 July 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Obitauri ought to be unblocked. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:59, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obitauri you were blocked for edit warring, please apologise and undertake not to edit war,and request an unblock; I think (I'm not an admin) your block could be rescinded. Sanctions are preventive/ coercive and not punitive. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:03, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know any else website with such "Law of free talking". I dont know why this admin says I am going to be blocked from talk page too for "Incivility". I can wait for 7 days its not problem. --Obitauri (talk) 12:09, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't know, you should try to study policy and understand why you were blocked so as to stay away from further blocks. Please study relevant policies. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:52, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

my comments

see discussion here [6]Sprutt (talk) 20:43, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ჯორჯიან ალფაბეტ

გამარჯობა. ეგრე არ ქამოვა გექმა უნდა სევიმუშაოთ. შენ რო ამბობ ჯავაიშვილის თუ არ გჯერა წავედი მეო არაა სწორი გეტყვის წადიო :დ. ხოდა ქეგმა შევიმუშაოთ უნდა მივატსვეთ იმას რო ქორიუნის ნაჯღაბნი არის შეცვლილი (ჩემი მთელი ცხოვრება ეგ მეგონა უეჭველი ფაქტი და ახლაც მჯერა. უნდა ვიპოვოთ ქართველი და უცხოური წყაროები მაგისთვის რო სასფიშნ არ ეწეროს :|. ხოდა დალშე იმათ ვერ ამოვიღებთ ხო ხვდები უნდა დავუმოთ მანდ რამე სიტყვა ვაიდლი არ მომწონს მარა გამოვნახავთ რამე სიტყვას :დ. და მერე უნდა დაიწეროს როგორმე რო არავის თავი არ შეუწუხებია ანფანების სედარებაზე, რაც მე მჯერა სხვათაშორის... და უნდა ადიწეროს ამაშტანავე რო ყველ ექრდონბა ქორიუნს. იდეაში პატარიძის წიგნი მაქ მარა მეზარება წაკითხვა დიდია :დ.

ხოდა კონსრურქციულად უნდა მივუდგეთ რა. :) დაწერე რას ფიქრობ. სოები სფეწიალურედ სევტსვალე : ]]--Dixtosa (talk) 20:39, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK მარტო სადამდე წახვალ ვნახავთ :D--Dixtosa (talk) 09:57, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

August 2013

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Georgian alphabet. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 23:06, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I already started discussion and proven I was right but Divot kept editing. Sorry if I broke any rule but I am right --Obitauri (talk) 06:54, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for edit warring, as you did at Georgian alphabet. 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 adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, 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. Dougweller (talk) 12:57, 19 August 2013 (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).

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

Request reason:

I was not edit warring. I brought several reliable sources which got removed by Divot. I request for my unblock. He removed sources and I brought them back. What I did wrong here. What consensus was needed to achieve WHEN I just brought back removed sources. It is NOT edit warring. I just brought back REMOVED sources! Obitauri (talk) 13:00, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Based on your previous editing history, and your unblock statement, I see no reason to think that you will not resume edit warring if I lift this block early. Please consider this a last chance; if you resume edit warring when your block is over in 2 weeks, you will very likely be blocked indefinitely. Floquenbeam (talk) 01:11, 20 August 2013 (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.

Given that this is this editor's 3rd block for edit warring, his clear lack of understanding or willingness not to edit war, and the discussions at [7], [8], and [9] a topic ban on anything related to Georgia might be necessary. Dougweller (talk) 13:11, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will not decline the unblock since I made myself involved by reverting one of the edits, just to note that the user is strongly advised to follow dispute resolution rather than blindly revert the changes after the block expires.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:16, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted edit as you removed 3 source because Divot said its not reliable. They are reliable sources and you can read them. I can no longer discuss as I got blocked so you can see what you did here. I undid this as it is NOT good to remove Sources and I was not vandalizing or breaking any rule. Sorry if its rule here to do not get back removed source. SO I ask my unblock which gets declined by one of adminstrators.. --Obitauri (talk) 13:18, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is not problem for me to wait even for month for block expire, but I do not think this block was needed... --Obitauri (talk) 13:26, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a friendly piece of advice—when your block expires, consider a constructive discussion on the article's talk page before plunging into another revert spree. If you continue like that, you may very well end up blocked permanently. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 19, 2013; 13:40 (UTC)

(Yes, you're very right, Ezhiki.) @Dougweller, re topic ban: are you saying the user edits constructively in other areas? Because if not, a long block, perhaps indefinite, seems more logical to me if there's no improvement after this block. Obitauri's editing method is warfare, as far as I've seen. He seems worryingly unworried by shorter blocks, as long as he can keep edit warring between them. ("I can wait for 7 days its not problem", "It is not problem for me to wait even for month for block expire"). If he steams right ahead after this current block too, I do suggest an indefinite block. Not least per WP:CIR, as several of his comments above and especially this AN3RR thread show that after all the explanations and blocks, he doesn't really know what edit warring is. Bishonen | talk 13:56, 19 August 2013 (UTC).[reply]

@Bishonen - looking at his contributions, one of the very very few, if not the only one not related to Georgia was at Normandy landings, where he twice removed 'decisive' from "decisive Allied victory". So yes, an indefinite block is next, not a topic ban. Dougweller (talk) 14:07, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know what edit warring is BUT I am allowed to undo edit when it is vandalized. Here were removed several sources which was already fixed by me. Divot removed them as here were no links or descriptions of this sources, I put links and he removed them again. Now it is removed again. I already discussed this on talk page. Divot did not said anything about this removed sources, he kept removing them and it was nonsense to do not get back removed sources. Also about my contribution in Normandy landings, reason I removed decisive was it breaks rule of neutral point of view. Permament block is not needed here. Article about Georgian alphabet haves several source removed. Divot removes them cause:

He told me that Armenian look haves foreign support, Georgian does not. I brought foreign source supporting Georgian viewpoint, this was going on his contrary so he removed it. It was not needed to block me for this reason. I just finished reading all the rules. I will try to to my best if this block will be lifted, if not I will wait 2 weeks and then do my best but as this block is not needed, it should be lifted --Obitauri (talk) 14:17, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Divot did not said anything about this removed sources, he kept removing them and it was nonsense to do not get back removed sources." - This, to put it mildly, not true. [10]. Divot (talk) 14:32, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Divot, you did not only removed Huning's source, you also removed 2 foreign source which says Georgian alphabet was made by Parnavaz. Also saying one of source is not reliable is just your words. I can also say this sources upporting Armenians are not reliable. First bring proof and then remove source. I request to get back this sources!! --Obitauri (talk) 14:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Divot, you did not only removed Huning's source" not only Huning's source, but also Michael Berman. No need to repeat over and over again the ... eee.... equivocation Divot (talk) 14:56, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you removed them? Because they do not agree your point of view? How can you prove they are not reliable sources, because you do not want them to be reliable? Tell me now. --Obitauri (talk) 14:58, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you basically don't understand what is the relevant source. Divot (talk) 15:00, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are sources you removed. Ok if I do not understand, then tell me what are relevant ones. Proof you are right. Tell me why I am wrong and why those are not reliable!

" Standard Languages and Multilingualism in European History, Matthias Hüning, P.299

Shamanic Journeys, Shamanic Stories - Michael Berman, P.127 CultureGrams: Europe Page 114 "Georgian alphabet was created by King Parnavaz in 2nd century B.C. " --Obitauri (talk) 15:02, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lfdder, Dougweller, Divot. Divot (talk) 15:09, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reason his books are not mainly about Georgian alphabet are not enough to make his ones as not reliable. Also then I can remove several sources supporting mesrop with same reason. This reasons does not fit any Wikipedia rule. This reasons are nonsense. You are just biased armenian trying to defend his "culture" --Obitauri (talk) 15:12, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Ukrainian. Divot (talk) 16:00, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) You may want to read WP:VANDALISM to learn what is a difference between vandalism and content dispute. What you describe is content dispute, not vandalism.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:33, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He removed proven, reliable sources. Does reverting this needs block? --Obitauri (talk) 14:36, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring in the end results in a block, especially if it is accompanied with the refusal to discuss the issue at the talk page. The only exception is removal of vandalism, and, as I noted, it is not applicable to your situation.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:43, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What I needed to discuss? I was already discussing this in talk page. Divot removed sources I added with reason they were not reliable with no discussion started about them. He should be blocked too then. I was not edit warring, I just reverted his EDIT WHICH REMOVED 3 RELIABLE SOURCE CAUSE THEY WERE ON CONTRARY OF HIS VIEWPOINT! I REQUEST FOR UNBLOCK! I DO NOT WANT TO BREAK RULE AND DO SOMETHING BAD AS OF THIS NON REASON BLOCK BUT IF NEEDED THEN>..!! --Obitauri (talk) 14:48, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You were edit warring. If your edits meet opposition (and they did, from several unrelated editors in good standing) you should not add them over and over again, but instead reach consensus at the talk page first. And would you please STOP SHOUTING. Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:57, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can tell you what happened: I brought 3 source as the supporting Ivane's point, not to bring proof that someone believes in Parnavaz's creation. Divot removed all 3 sources. I can say one of sources title is European Culture Alphabets or something like it. It is exactly about European culture and its reliable, but Divot said it is not. Also those 3 source I brought just to say Ivane's point haves support and not to bring proof here is point that someone believes in Parnavaz's creation. Those 3 source were 2nd "class" sources to just show Ivane got foreign supporters and as of this they must be here again. About my block appeal decline, with reason:

"Based on your previous editing history, and your unblock statement, I see no reason to think that you will not resume edit warring if I lift this block early. Please consider this a last chance; if you resume edit warring when your block is over in 2 weeks, you will very likely be blocked indefinitely."

What is point if I wait block 2 weeks or just get unblocked early as if he thinks I will anyways continue edit warring? Reason to think I will not continue edit warring is I read what is it now and I know I did it. Also this is last chance for me to do not get blocked, if I want myself blocked, I would already did something bad cause I can do it even if i am blocked but as I am not bad person, I will not. Also about my block with reason "as your previous edit history I see no reason to think". Its again what he thinks. How about giving be back chance and lifting my block early to see what I will do? As I saw sometimes people does not get why I get into edit warring, I will always try to discuss first and do not even do single edit before. This is what I will do. I say it and if I lie and I get unblocked and I continue edit war, then you will take off "bad person" earlier but I will not. I should be unblocked.--Obitauri (talk) 09:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obitauri, if you want to be unblocked you need to accept the view of several Wikipedians here that you were edit warring. You may need to change your own definition of an edit war to do this. At the moment I think you understand an edit warrior to be someone who vandalises Wikipedia and damages it by repeatedly making bad edits. That's not correct. According to WP:EW the edfinition of an edit warrior is an editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring, whether or not the edits were justifiable: it is no defense to say "but my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring". If you don't understand that this is what you were doing, then an unblock is not going to happen and you are likely to come acrtoss the same problem in future. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 15:14, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I already know now what is edit warring. I will try to do not break rules anymore. I will try to fit everything in rules --Obitauri (talk) 15:18, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"This reasons does not fit any Wikipedia rule. This reasons are nonsense. You are just biased armenian trying to defend his "culture" - WP:CIVIL. Divot (talk) 16:27, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to be unblocked, you need to use the {{unblock}} again. I'm still not convinced. Dougweller (talk) 09:28, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|reason=I can tell you what happened: I brought 3 source as the supporting Ivane's point, not to bring proof that someone believes in Parnavaz's creation. Divot removed all 3 sources. I can say one of sources title is European Culture Alphabets or something like it. It is exactly about European culture and its reliable, but Divot said it is not. Also those 3 source I brought just to say Ivane's point haves support and not to bring proof here is point that someone believes in Parnavaz's creation. Those 3 source were 2nd "class" sources to just show Ivane got foreign supporters and as of this they must be here again. What is point if I wait block 2 weeks or just get unblocked early as if he thinks I will anyways continue edit warring? Reason to think I will not continue edit warring is I read what is it now and I know I did it. Also this is last chance for me to do not get blocked, if I want myself blocked, I would already did something bad cause I can do it even if i am blocked but as I am not bad person, I will not. Also about my block with reason "as your previous edit history I see no reason to think". Its again what he thinks. How about giving be back chance and lifting my block early to see what I will do? As I saw sometimes people does not get why I get into edit warring, I will always try to discuss first and do not even do single edit before. This is what I will do. I say it and if I lie and I get unblocked and I continue edit war, then you will take off "bad person" earlier but I will not. I should be unblocked. [[User:Obitauri|Obitauri]] ([[User talk:Obitauri#top|talk]]) 09:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)}}

I have de-activated this request as your block is now expired, but I am also going to add some information regarding edit warring in the hope that this not happen again:

I'm sorry to see that you are blocked for edit warring. Many users find themselves confused as to why they were blocked in such a situation as they believed they were acting in the best interest of Wikipedia. What it is important for you to understand is that as far as the edit warring policy is concerned there is no right and wrong in an edit war. Anyone who edit wars is wrong and is blocked to prevent the disruption from continuing. There are very few exceptions, such as reverting blatant vandalism, which is not the case here. We don't allow edit warring because it never helps resolve an issue, and it always makes it worse.

What to do instead:

Mark disputed statements or, if needed, the entire page with appropriate tags
Initiate discussion on the talk page (note that edit summaries are not a substitute for actual discussion)
If that does not rectify the issue seek page protection and/or dispute resolution as needed.

If you follow these simple steps instead of edit warring you will find it is actually relatively easy to avoid edit warring and getting blocked for it.

Hope that helps. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:34, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Last chance

As an admin who declined a previous unblock request, I'm concerned to see you're getting right back into edit warring immediately after your unblock. Talk page participation doesn't mean you still get to edit war while discussing.

This has been a recurring pattern throughout your history here.

So here's the deal. You may add or remove something from an article once. If you are reverted, you may not restore your edit until after you have gained consensus for it on the article talk page. If you restore your edit before you have gained consensus for it, I will block you indefinitely. This is called WP:0RR. And I'm not talking about once a day, I'm talking about once per article, ever. If someone wants to see a source (or, a different source), provide the source on the talk page first, and add it to the article if there is consensus to include it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:11, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Terroring me with block? If I want I can pass it but I do not want to break rules or do something starting with letter H.

Also I reverted this cause this guy removed source which I brought, he asked me other kind of source, I posted it on talk page and then reverted it. This guy asked me for encyclopedia source so it was here and I had full permission to revert it. Now this guy again reverted my source with again nonsense reason, he says this is again primary source when this source is tretiary and is most reliable as its from encyclopedia. I will talk on talk page of 2nd battle of kharkov now otherwise it seems all staff is chasing me like Gestapo to get my one mistake and block me. Still I can do something else after block anyways but I do not want to break rules. --Obitauri (talk) 11:03, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

September 2013

Hello, I'm Andy Dingley. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Normandy landings that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Please do not accuse other editors of bias, simply because of their geographical location. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:25, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. 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 adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

--Ymblanter (talk) 14:12, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now, you have been warned many times and advised to stop edit warring and move away from battleground mentality. Specifically, you have been warned earlier this week to stop reverting others, and it was clearly explained to you that you are on the zero revert rule. Today, you have twice reverted good-faith edits one two in Matzoon (yogurt). Consequently, you have been now blocked for an indefinite duration of time. The template just above would direct you on how to appeal the block.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:12, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ye edit warring? Permament block? Also after block expires you are welcome to edit? How it will expire after permament block? Do you know I removed unsourced content from Matzoon article? As it said Matzoon served from armenia when no source said matzoon served was armenian. On Kharkov article I was not edit warring and I was discussing on talk page and replied user who told me "I dont give a fuck" and reported him. Normandy landings article was article where I was discussing, I did not broke rule last time, I am sure reason I am blocked is that I reported "privilegied" user who was using abusive language. I am sure if I did it single time, I was going to get blocked when this user is still here with privilegies. I appeal my block, I do not want to use other way, I use legal way --Obitauri (talk) 14:32, 6 September 2013 (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).

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

Request reason:

Edit warring? Permament block? Also after block expires you are welcome to edit? How it will expire after permament block? I removed unsourced content from Matzoon article, As it said Matzoon served from armenia when no source said matzoon served was armenian. On Kharkov article I was not edit warring last time and I was discussing on talk page and replied user who told me "I dont give a fuck" and reported him. Before I just said that some users are just protecting something as of bias and DID NOT INSULT anyone. No rule against to say something like it. Normandy landings article was article where I was discussing, I did not broke rule last time. Requesting removal of my block

Decline reason:

The battleground mentality has obviously not changed. Veiled threats such as "I appeal my block, I do not want to use other way, I use legal way" sure don't help. If you want to continue appealing your block, please read WP:BASC. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:59, 6 September 2013 (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.

Speedy deletion of "Template:User National-Socialist"

A page you created, Template:User National-Socialist, has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, it serves only to attack some entity. Please do not continue to create attack pages, as you will be blocked from editing.

You are welcome to contribute content which complies with our content policies and any applicable inclusion guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.

Thank you. DVdm (talk) 14:12, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

National-Socialism is ideology. WIKIPEDIA AGAIN SHOWS ALLIED BIAS AND IGNORING FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND DUMBNESS AROUND HERE. DUMB REASON GIVEN OF REMOVING THIS TEMPLATE AND NONSENSE BLOCK RIGHT NOW. YOU ARE VIOLATING FREEDOM OF SPEECH. THIS IS AMERICAN HOST OF THIS WEBSITE. LAW IS AT MY SIDE. --Obitauri (talk) 14:37, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page access revoked. While blocked, a user may generally only use their talk page to discuss and appeal against their block. Compounding the original offence is not usually a good idea. Any appeal will now have to be conducted by email. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:41, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You might also want to read WP:EBUR, specifically example #2. I don't fancy your chances getting unblocked, to be honest. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:53, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And while you are at it, read Wikipedia:Free speech. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:55, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]