Hi there. I was directed to you by GB fan as the editor that proposed the "Balkan cuisine" article for deletion. GB fan has just deleted the expired Prod, and I've noticed that various redlinks are left. I was wondering if you thought it would be better simply to remove the redlinks, or alternatively to recreate the page as a disambiguation page linking to the culinary articles for the various Balkan countries. Polly Tunnel ( talk) 14:31, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Damian salams gitvli, aseti damwerlobit da ucnauri qartulit imitom gwer rom arc targmna shedzlon da arc enis dadgena :D. Shen tu gaqvs rame socialuri qseli mitxari da shevxmiandet. Aqtiuri redaqtori xar da urtiertanamshromloba sachiro sakitxebze gamogvadgeba, me chemi saxelit vidzebnebi zukeris qselshi.-- g. balaxaZe ★ 12:31, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
If you continue to revert authentic edits and show more disrespect, I will need to report you for vandalism. If you do not have the knowledge and expertise on climates, better to leave it to people who do, or at least have the incentive to learn. The map is incorrect, and not only for Tbilisi. What matters is the climate data from weather stations. But the more important thing is you need to respect other editors on Wikipedia. You can't insult people. I give it to your inexperience, if you don't follow the Wikipedia etiquette, your account will be banned indefinitely. Berkserker ( talk) 05:27, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
I am warning you one last time, even though you have violated the 3RR rule. You still have time to revert your own changes, if not I will have to report you. I'm not your enemy, nor of Georgia. I love Georgian cuisine, have lots of Georgian friends to name a few. I am in fact improving the article, which is full of biased statements such as the one stating the all green Tbilisi is borderline semi-arid. But it seems you only see what you want to perceive.. Berkserker ( talk) 05:45, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm sure neither you or I have any desire to enter into an edit war, and from what you've said on the Sputnik talk page I think we're broadly in agreement. Can we try to improve the article in such a way that the tenets of Wikipedia are placed at the centre though? Let's try to work on a wording which works, ie neither biased for or against the subject, rather reflecting as accurate a portrayal of it as is possible. I'm here, and I'm actually pretty much in agreement with you. let's have a dialogue rather than an edit war. Jackinscotland ( talk) 14:36, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
It's ironic for you to revert my edit with a caption of "not what the source says" when that's exactly you did in your edit in the first place.
"While Kazakhstan was not considered by authorities in the former Soviet Union to be a part of Central Asia, it does have physical and cultural geographic characteristics similar to those of the other Central Asian countries."
"Despite its bi-continental placement, Khazakhstan's physical, cultural, and geographic characteristics are more similar to those of the other Central Asian countries."
Not what the source says. Quackriot ( talk) 09:18, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Damianmx ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
This is a malicious block request by a user with some serious grudge against me, who did not even have the courtesy to let me know he opened an inquiry so I could respond. There is nothing in that "evidence" that supposedly ties me to some banned users years ago. The book quote which they cited as an example of my sock puppetry was already on that talk page before being archived. I copied it word for word because it was exactly what I needed at the moment. Do scholarly works become useless because they were cited by someone? The veracity of those sources was first questioned by @ D.Papuashvili: is it wrong for me to read those past arguments to decide what's the appropriate course of action? Yes, I've lived in Tbilisi and edit Georgia-related articles, so what? so do countless other editors. Instead of placing Georgia squarely in Western Asia, as LouisAragon insists, I put it "on the border of Eastern Europe and Western Asia", so what? That's what the cited sources say. I question that Georgia is part of imaginary Greater Iran, so what? So would any editor with even slightest knowledge of Georgia. This is a typical vindictive nationalistic retaliation, nothing more.
Decline reason:
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Satt_2 confirms sockpuppetry. Yamla ( talk) 22:58, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
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.
Damianmx ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Why was my review automatically denied? The checkuser investigation did not produce anything. Instead I was blocked on some dubious "behavioral evidence (non-CU block)". What does that even mean, can anyone claim whatever they want?
Decline reason:
The CU investigation did indeed produce something. Unfortunately for you, previous technical evidence had been archived. OhNoitsJamie Talk 00:13, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
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.
}
Damianmx ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Earlier I had a serious talk with @ Drmies: after discussing the aspects of my case at length, I decided it was time to come clean and hope for a WP:CLEANSTART.
The truth is that the facts laid out in my previous SPIs, although at times misleading and exaggerated, are largely true. I have been active on Wikipedia for quite a few years under different names, and have created countless pages and thousands of edits and media, many of which I was thanked for. But because I made a mistake of IP/Account puppetry years ago when I was still an immature High School student, I got caught up in an endless loop of blocks and comebacks. When I was first blocked I was not told anything about a fresh start, so I kept coming back in disguise, which eventually turned into a pattern. I guess I was also motivated by spite: as you may note, many of the previous SPIs were revenge investigations opened by users who themselves turned out to be indefinitely blocked puppets with a grudge. I know well that this does not excuse my behavior, but I just wanted to provide some context for my urge to keep coming back just to prove some other puppet reincarnations wrong. A very immature mistake, either way.
As I have grown and learned a thing or two on this site, I decided to move away from serial evasion and hope to turn into a more legitimate editor. In fact, excluding this account, I have not produced socks in years, which is in stark contrast to how many I hatched before. Some of the recent blocked users are not affiliated with me at all and are rather victims of circumstances. For instance, it was recently brought to my attention that some poor soul Olivia Winfield was indefinitely blocked on "behavioral grounds" as my sock but she really, really had nothing to do with me - I have no idea who she is. But I guess at this point any bold or argumentative user on Georgia-related articles is assumed to be me. I now realize that this ends up hurting everyone who is gracious enough to edit or expand these neglected topics, which is not something I'd want to continue.
After years of puppeteering and resulting collateral damage, it is a tough call to give me a clean start but if I am given one, I will make the best of it.
Decline reason:
I appreciate the honesty, but given your arguments just above, I don't think you fully understand what behaviour is expected of editors in good standing. You may want to check out the standard offer. Huon ( talk) 21:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
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.
@ Bbb33:, @ Huon:, @ Drmies:, @ LouisAragon:: Coming from WP:backlog, I just reverted a bunch of edits from this account, none of which had improved the article [3]. I was about to give notice to the user about the edits I disagreed with, until I saw the indef. block. Is it acceptable and/or worth going through the edits from the user and undoing the ones that are a problem? From what little I have seen, I do not expect the other edits by this account will be much help to wikipedia. I do not know if that is allowed even if a user has an indef. block or not. I believe I have read of cases in the mainstream media where the work of COI editors was carefully looked at and reverted. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 09:19, 24 July 2016 (UTC) correction: @ Bbb23: -- David Tornheim ( talk) 09:20, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi there. I was directed to you by GB fan as the editor that proposed the "Balkan cuisine" article for deletion. GB fan has just deleted the expired Prod, and I've noticed that various redlinks are left. I was wondering if you thought it would be better simply to remove the redlinks, or alternatively to recreate the page as a disambiguation page linking to the culinary articles for the various Balkan countries. Polly Tunnel ( talk) 14:31, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Damian salams gitvli, aseti damwerlobit da ucnauri qartulit imitom gwer rom arc targmna shedzlon da arc enis dadgena :D. Shen tu gaqvs rame socialuri qseli mitxari da shevxmiandet. Aqtiuri redaqtori xar da urtiertanamshromloba sachiro sakitxebze gamogvadgeba, me chemi saxelit vidzebnebi zukeris qselshi.-- g. balaxaZe ★ 12:31, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
If you continue to revert authentic edits and show more disrespect, I will need to report you for vandalism. If you do not have the knowledge and expertise on climates, better to leave it to people who do, or at least have the incentive to learn. The map is incorrect, and not only for Tbilisi. What matters is the climate data from weather stations. But the more important thing is you need to respect other editors on Wikipedia. You can't insult people. I give it to your inexperience, if you don't follow the Wikipedia etiquette, your account will be banned indefinitely. Berkserker ( talk) 05:27, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
I am warning you one last time, even though you have violated the 3RR rule. You still have time to revert your own changes, if not I will have to report you. I'm not your enemy, nor of Georgia. I love Georgian cuisine, have lots of Georgian friends to name a few. I am in fact improving the article, which is full of biased statements such as the one stating the all green Tbilisi is borderline semi-arid. But it seems you only see what you want to perceive.. Berkserker ( talk) 05:45, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm sure neither you or I have any desire to enter into an edit war, and from what you've said on the Sputnik talk page I think we're broadly in agreement. Can we try to improve the article in such a way that the tenets of Wikipedia are placed at the centre though? Let's try to work on a wording which works, ie neither biased for or against the subject, rather reflecting as accurate a portrayal of it as is possible. I'm here, and I'm actually pretty much in agreement with you. let's have a dialogue rather than an edit war. Jackinscotland ( talk) 14:36, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
It's ironic for you to revert my edit with a caption of "not what the source says" when that's exactly you did in your edit in the first place.
"While Kazakhstan was not considered by authorities in the former Soviet Union to be a part of Central Asia, it does have physical and cultural geographic characteristics similar to those of the other Central Asian countries."
"Despite its bi-continental placement, Khazakhstan's physical, cultural, and geographic characteristics are more similar to those of the other Central Asian countries."
Not what the source says. Quackriot ( talk) 09:18, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Damianmx ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
This is a malicious block request by a user with some serious grudge against me, who did not even have the courtesy to let me know he opened an inquiry so I could respond. There is nothing in that "evidence" that supposedly ties me to some banned users years ago. The book quote which they cited as an example of my sock puppetry was already on that talk page before being archived. I copied it word for word because it was exactly what I needed at the moment. Do scholarly works become useless because they were cited by someone? The veracity of those sources was first questioned by @ D.Papuashvili: is it wrong for me to read those past arguments to decide what's the appropriate course of action? Yes, I've lived in Tbilisi and edit Georgia-related articles, so what? so do countless other editors. Instead of placing Georgia squarely in Western Asia, as LouisAragon insists, I put it "on the border of Eastern Europe and Western Asia", so what? That's what the cited sources say. I question that Georgia is part of imaginary Greater Iran, so what? So would any editor with even slightest knowledge of Georgia. This is a typical vindictive nationalistic retaliation, nothing more.
Decline reason:
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Satt_2 confirms sockpuppetry. Yamla ( talk) 22:58, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
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.
Damianmx ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Why was my review automatically denied? The checkuser investigation did not produce anything. Instead I was blocked on some dubious "behavioral evidence (non-CU block)". What does that even mean, can anyone claim whatever they want?
Decline reason:
The CU investigation did indeed produce something. Unfortunately for you, previous technical evidence had been archived. OhNoitsJamie Talk 00:13, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
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.
}
Damianmx ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Earlier I had a serious talk with @ Drmies: after discussing the aspects of my case at length, I decided it was time to come clean and hope for a WP:CLEANSTART.
The truth is that the facts laid out in my previous SPIs, although at times misleading and exaggerated, are largely true. I have been active on Wikipedia for quite a few years under different names, and have created countless pages and thousands of edits and media, many of which I was thanked for. But because I made a mistake of IP/Account puppetry years ago when I was still an immature High School student, I got caught up in an endless loop of blocks and comebacks. When I was first blocked I was not told anything about a fresh start, so I kept coming back in disguise, which eventually turned into a pattern. I guess I was also motivated by spite: as you may note, many of the previous SPIs were revenge investigations opened by users who themselves turned out to be indefinitely blocked puppets with a grudge. I know well that this does not excuse my behavior, but I just wanted to provide some context for my urge to keep coming back just to prove some other puppet reincarnations wrong. A very immature mistake, either way.
As I have grown and learned a thing or two on this site, I decided to move away from serial evasion and hope to turn into a more legitimate editor. In fact, excluding this account, I have not produced socks in years, which is in stark contrast to how many I hatched before. Some of the recent blocked users are not affiliated with me at all and are rather victims of circumstances. For instance, it was recently brought to my attention that some poor soul Olivia Winfield was indefinitely blocked on "behavioral grounds" as my sock but she really, really had nothing to do with me - I have no idea who she is. But I guess at this point any bold or argumentative user on Georgia-related articles is assumed to be me. I now realize that this ends up hurting everyone who is gracious enough to edit or expand these neglected topics, which is not something I'd want to continue.
After years of puppeteering and resulting collateral damage, it is a tough call to give me a clean start but if I am given one, I will make the best of it.
Decline reason:
I appreciate the honesty, but given your arguments just above, I don't think you fully understand what behaviour is expected of editors in good standing. You may want to check out the standard offer. Huon ( talk) 21:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
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.
@ Bbb33:, @ Huon:, @ Drmies:, @ LouisAragon:: Coming from WP:backlog, I just reverted a bunch of edits from this account, none of which had improved the article [3]. I was about to give notice to the user about the edits I disagreed with, until I saw the indef. block. Is it acceptable and/or worth going through the edits from the user and undoing the ones that are a problem? From what little I have seen, I do not expect the other edits by this account will be much help to wikipedia. I do not know if that is allowed even if a user has an indef. block or not. I believe I have read of cases in the mainstream media where the work of COI editors was carefully looked at and reverted. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 09:19, 24 July 2016 (UTC) correction: @ Bbb23: -- David Tornheim ( talk) 09:20, 24 July 2016 (UTC)