Talk:Mzia Amaglobeli

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography

Georgia (country) Low‑importance

	Georgia (country) portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Georgia (country), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Georgia and Georgians on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Georgia (country)Wikipedia:WikiProject Georgia (country)Template:WikiProject Georgia (country)Georgia (country)
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Journalism Low‑importance

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

BLP violations

Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion.

Remove any material that: relies on unverifiable sources; contains defamatory information about living person; calls for activism; gossip; NGOs; self published; court records;

The burden of evidence rests on the editor who adds the material- BlueHourDusk

If removed material is added back to the page it will be reported to the BLP Noticeboard GA Brac (talk) 04:40, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from adding or modifying content, without citing a reliable source. Kindly review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and consider adding proper references to support the information. Your edits appear to constitute Wikipedia:Vandalism and have been reverted. You are vandalizing the page by making abrupt, non-standard edits, including the use of (source?), which do not align with Wikipedia’s guidelines. Please adhere to Wikipedia:Verifiability and ensure that any changes are supported by reliable sources. BlueHourDusk (talk) 09:28, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of unsourced material requires no refernces. No content that would require sourcing was added to the article See: Edit Summary. Please refrain from reverting unverified content back to the BLP page WP:BLPRS

Your edits appear to constitutte Edit Warring WP:WAR "An editor who repeatedly restores their preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether those edits are justifiable. Claiming "My edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is not a valid defense".@BlueHourDusk

WP:VANDNOT Make sure that the removed content is consistent with Wikipedia's standards before restoring it or treating its removal as vandalism. GA Brac (talk) 01:57, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueHourDusk Please, Stop removing well sourced verifiable information from the page. Stop reverting to the version that fits your own political bias. If you have an issue with the content bring it to the discussion. GA Brac (talk) 08:14, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please refrain from making disruptive edits that do not adhere to Wikipedia's writing standards and guidelines. Disagreeing with a source does not justify aggressively altering the text using bold formatting and excessive brackets with question marks. Such actions may be perceived as biased and unethical. Checking your own talk page would be reasonable. The information is well-sourced, and it appears that only you object to it. Your edits seem biased, as you attempt to undermine the content by either removing it or using non-standard, aggressive language. Labeling everything you disagree with as biased is irrational. The sources you include, which are government-backed media, reflect a non-neutral tone and do not adhere to Wikipedia standards, often using unnecessary bold text and brackets. This is an encyclopedia, not a blog. ~~~~ BlueHourDusk (talk) 08:29, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bold text represents source quotation which is done by visual editing automatically without user input. Formatting can be corrected, if needed, this is not a justification for content removal. Public media sources and official statements adhere to Wikipedia guidelines. Non- neutral tone you referred to is your personal perception which is irrelevant. Again, if you have a problem with verification of my sources, please, point it out, but do not remove until resolution. The information you keep reverting to is unsourced, speculative and inconsistent with Wikipedia standards. Replacing the undisputed video source with a false written description of it, official statements with unknown NGO bloggers defies basic logic and is a clear sign of Edit Warring. Please, revise your last alterations to the page. GA Brac (talk) 09:49, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]