User talk:Damianmx

Balkan cuisine

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)[reply]

@Polly Tunnel: I don't mind it either way. The original page was deleted because it was an unsourced list of disparate culinary topics, which could not stand as an article of its own and added no value. If you want to create a disambiguation page and list cuisine pages for individual Balkan countries for reference, I think that would be fine. In fact, that's probably how it was supposed to have been in the first place.--Damianmx (talk) 17:00, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aqa mshvidoba

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)[reply]

Your edits to climate sections

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)[reply]

"What matters is the climate data from weather stations." It sounds to me like you're doing WP:Original Research. Have your work published first and then you can cite it. I already provided one source and I don't think anyone should have to take just your word that you're a climate expert.--Damianmx (talk) 05:48, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I hope now we are on the same page that it isn't original research :) Btw I removed Tbilisi from the Köppen article, as it isn't the best example for the climate type. Berkserker (talk) 11:45, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Climate of Tbilisi

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)[reply]

What makes you think that I or anyone else here cares what climate classification Tbilisi falls under? If you think the maps and other climate content is wrong, provide sources, instead of doing original research and throwing around your purported climate expertise. But whatever you add, saying that winters in Tbilisi are "cool" is just misleading. There have been instances of people freezing to death, I would not descibe that as "cool" winters. [1]. --Damianmx (talk) 05:54, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, take note that I have not broken the WP:3RR, count carefully.--Damianmx (talk) 05:57, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not thinking anything, just replying to what you are saying. And I am not throwing around "my expertise", I was coerced to make a defence due to your harsh and insulting comments. My intention was only to warn you not make changes so boldly. Yes, Tbilisi winters are cold, but climate classification isn't really about how we perceive these values as humans. Years ago, at first, I was also puzzled with these cold, cool, warm and hot classifications of climate and I used to think they were misleading. However it is just how these climates are classified scientifically. Anything that lies in the subtropical and oceanic climate zones has a so called "cool" winter, as the mean temperature is above freezing during their coldest month. This isn't something specific to Tbilisi either, you can look at many other cities to see what I'm talking about. For example, Berlin, it is a cold city right? It is also classified as having "cool" winters, even though it has a lower mean temperature during its coldest month compared to Tbilisi. This is why I had to change the wording, not that I am trying to downgrade Tbilisi. As for the figures, I am not making anything up. The weather data on the Tbilisi article is provided by Pogoda.ru.net and the Hong Kong Observatory. And the rules for classifying climates are stated on the Köppen climate classification page. I just apply these rules to the given set of data on the respective pages, as do other editors. However you know what would be a constructive argument? Providing official meteorological data from the State Meteorological Service of Georgia. It would be beneficial to change these secondary sources with the official data from the official source of the respective country. Since I don't speak any Georgian, and you do, you can go ahead and find the website to publish these figures. As for the 3RR rule, you don't need to only revert from the revert button to qualify as a revert. Manual changes are also inclusive. Berkserker (talk) 06:28, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your reasoning about "cool" vs "cold", but keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a scientific journal and the readers don't care about the classification terms as much as what those terms convey. I think the best way to avoid confusion is to say that "winters in Tbilisi are classified as 'cool' because their average temperature is just above freezing; however, temperatures can fall double digits below freezing level, which has resulted in deaths in the past."
As for your other point, I could not find official raw climate data, but the Tbilisi Mayor's Office gives the following climate classification for Tbilisi in Georgian: "moderately warm semi-arid to moderately humid subtropical transitional climate" [2]. It sounds complicated but largely true based on my observations. It is some central parts of Tbilisi near the river that can get lush, but on the outskirts you can clearly see dryness and nothing more than some shrubbery.--Damianmx (talk) 06:50, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that Tbilisi is relatively drier compared to some other regions of Georgia, however still too far off from the threshold to be mentioned. It is similar to some regions in Germany and South Eastern Britain. As for the continental influences, I find it fit to be mentioned in the article. In fact I was thinking about it myself as well. Btw, I hope now you see it wasn't original research I was proposing. I am just trying to maintain the linear consistency between climate sections of articles. Berkserker (talk) 07:14, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One thing to add though, semi-arid is defined for steppe vegetation only. Berkserker (talk) 07:17, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Btw i offer to change the heading for this conversation, to its old and less hostile version. Berkserker (talk) 15:38, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sputnik Edits

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)[reply]

I guess we won't be having a dialogue then, which is a shame. If you actually read what I've written and looked at my edits, you'd see that I've made no attempt to remove anything. Which is ironic, given that you - repeatedly - have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackinscotland (talk • contribs) 18:53, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not what the source says

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.

Encyclopedia Britannica you linked to actually says:

"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."

...while you wrote:

"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)[reply]

When I said that, I was actually referring to the CIA source, which clearly put it under Central Asia with a sliver of land in Europe. I have no issues with the current Britannica wording, it just happened to be part of the same revert.--Damianmx (talk) 18:11, 11 June 2016 (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).

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)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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)[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.

}

Note: Your review was not automatically denied. I looked into the situation. Although you claim you were blocked on 'behavioral evidence', that comment actually refers to Olivia Winfield (talk · contribs). I also note that you haven't actually denied sockpuppetry yet. You may wish to explicitly do so in order that the next reviewing administrator takes that into consideration. --Yamla (talk) 23:17, 12 June 2016 (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).

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)[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.

@Huon:, I was not asking to be unblocked immediately, just for a possibility down the road. I don't know how else this is supposed to be done.

You can request an unblock six months from now, but generally the request must came from the master account, in this instance Satt 2 (talk · contribs · count).--Bbb23 (talk) 22:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Damianmx, I think "standard offer" was maybe the best thing to expect under the circumstances--I hadn't seen, for instance, your "collection" from 2011. Bbb23 is, as usual, right; however, if you are unblocked after the standard offer is accepted (by you) and approved (on WP:AN, for instance), I suppose you ask for CLEANSTART if you like, if you want to drop the old names completely. I also appreciate your honesty and, if you indeed keep out of trouble (meaning, away) for six months, this is no doubt going to count in your favor. And by that time you might convince Huon as well. Take care, Drmies (talk) 22:27, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: thanks for pointing that out, I had no idea what "standard offer" was until now but it sounds good by me. Also @Bbb23: just to be clear, I just read that "Banned users seeking a return are well-advised to make significant and useful contributions to other WMF projects prior to requesting a return to English Wikipedia per this 'offer'. Many unban requests have been declined due to the banned user simply waiting the six months out, without making any contributions to other projects.". Does that mean I am encouraged/allowed to edit Wiktionary, Commons etc, in good faith? Either way, lets just hope I can still figure out how to access that old account...--Damianmx (talk) 23:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A few things. First, Satt 2 was set up with an e-mail address. Therefore, if you've forgotten the password, you should be able to retrieve it. Second, if you have a plausible reason why the unblock request cannot come from the master account, you should make it when you request an unblock, and it will be considered along with everything else. Finally, as to whether you should contribute to other projects, I would think it depends on whether you used other accounts on those projects as well. If you did, you're effectively socking again, which is not a good thing.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:48, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edits from this account

@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)[reply]

For 6 years you're intermittently socking on Wikipedia. From 2010 up to including right now, anno 2016. This is not the place to find a solution for your extreme insecurities and doubts regarding Georgia. You tell that "back then" you were "still a immature high school kid". Well, why do you continue with the exact same matters/stuff/pattern as you did back then, when, according to your own words, at that time you were still a "immature high school kid"? Just for a thought. Having said that, I'd like to state to the reading admins here that even though Damianmx's "revelation" or "confession" sounds promising on paper, please keep in mind that this was his third unblock request. Given that his previous two unblock requests were to blatantly deny any sockpuppetry, and were rightfully so declined, another one would have most definetely have resulted in a revokement of talk page access. Obviously, to keep the dialogue going, he "suddenly" changed the approach and admitted that this account is another sock on the final and last unblock request ticket. Even though shortly before he literally completely denied any remote sockpuppetry links. Nevertheless, I do hope for him that he can indeed do what he pledges to do and return in the distant future as a good standing Wikipedia member. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 22:50, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Tornheim, sure, if you like you're welcome to help clean up the problems left behind by this editor. Huon (talk) 11:53, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the editor made poor edits, they need to be taken care of. I am not ready for some blanket condemnation, by the way, nor do I have an opinion on earlier edits from earlier accounts. I do wish to note that I just removed some commentary from another editor that struck me as personal and patronizing, and I have a certain amount of sympathy for the user--which says nothing about the edits. So go ahead, David Tornheim, and do what you can to improve our beautiful project. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 12:17, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback from each of you. And yeah, I thought that comment you removed was a bit over the top. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:16, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I looked over a good number of the Damianmx's edits. No question for me that Damianmx made improvements by creating Mariam Jambakur-Orbeliani and improving Art Museum of Georgia. Most recently Damianmx and Hyrudagon were at many of the same articles and would revert each other, and I think Hyrudagon usually was the last to revert. Damianmx also had similar encounters with LouisAragon. I don't know the subject matter well enough to know who was more correct, or if it is more of a judgment call based on taste.

Most of the further edits I saw were not as bad as the ones I recently fixed. I trust more expert editors in the subject matter where Damianmx edited will be a better judge than me if anything still needs to be fixed. I think these other pages have enough activity that any major problems would have been identified already or will be corrected fairly quickly if any exist. I'd be happy to add a couple of those pages to my watchlist if anyone requests. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:29, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is very easy to make good edits on obscure subjects. It is also very easy to make bad ones, to make deliberately bad ones, to knowingly insert content ranging from distortions to blatant lies to make the articles follow your agenda. And it is easy for that faulty content to remain there because of the obscurity and specialization of the subject. Damianmx was making both sort of edits: he was a bad editor not because of his socking, but because of his editing aims revealed through his content additions. While LouisAragon's comments got overly personal and off-topically insulting, I see where he was coming from. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:48, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]