User talk:Igorberger/11-March-2008-23-July-2009

goju ryu

Ok. I think it is too much information. Maybe the qigong aqspects of goju may be explained while describing the medicinal aspects of sanchin kata. In any case, the article needs more basic information by now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alfredo elejalde (talk • contribs) 05:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:WikiCommonSense

I have nominated Category:WikiCommonSense (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. ZimZalaBim ^talk 22:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am banned from Wikipedia namespace so I cannot come to participate in the discussion. I guess there is no WikiCommonSense, so you might as well delete the category! Igor Berger (talk) 22:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Igor - as El_C clearly indicates above ... feel free to edit Wikipedia space if it involves yourself. That is a common sense extension of your current topic ban. In this case Category:WikiCommonSense clearly involves your previous edits and does not look as if you have convoluted the situation to become involved - so you should feel free to comment as requested.--VS ^talk 22:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the offer. I will come over to add a few pithy words. Igor Berger (talk) 23:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel63

While based on their editing history Rachel63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) may be a sock of Bsharvy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) this is not confirmed by checkuser, although they do edit from the same country. Squatt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), on the other hand is the same editor as Bsharvy as confirmed by checkuser. Fred Talk 23:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Fred, I knew that Squatt is Bsharvy from the edit style. Rachel could be his other account work vs. home that he uses to proxy himself. Igor Berger (talk) 23:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Israel

See Talk:Israel#BBS News link. -- tariqabjotu 12:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Autoconfirmed edits

Wikipedia:Autoconfirmed Proposal has been made already and, although I think it would be an excellent idea, it was sadly rejected by the community. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You need to get commonsense editors on board. Talk to this guy User:Equazcion and see what he says. I think before running a proposal through, enough people need to support it. There is such a thing as consensus shopping and canvasing, but there is also IAR. So we have to evolve, same like evolution..:) Igor Berger (talk) 17:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to comment on article quoting you

I have decided to write, in my own good time, an article about certain "recent experiences" related to Wikipedia.

I shall assume that your true name is Igor Berger.

In the above-referenced article, I shall quote, in whole or in part, your post to the "User talk" page of Tim Vickers, under the heading "evolution," dated "2 April 2008."

In the interest of fairness, and in accordance with journalistic ethics, I shall provide you with a copy of this article, prior to publication, for the purpose of feedback. I shall provide this copy through any channel that you wish (e-mail; surface post); however, I shall not provide this copy via Wikipedia "User talk." Should you choose to decline this invitation, then I shall simply report this as fact: e.g. "Igor Berger declined the author's invitation to comment." However, I shall consider the fact of your "non-response" to this invitation as subject for "fair comment" in the article.

Leroy W. Demery, Jr.

Ldemery (talk) 19:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem commenting on your article. What I wrote about vandalism still stands. Wikipedia should not be abused by users who want to push their POV in making articles against consensus. With regurds to evolution I do believe we are God's children and there is parrelel relationship between evolution and genesis. But if Wikipedia by consensus does not see that as relevent to the article, an editor does not need to play hide and seek, using sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry to elude and deceive the community. You are not here to edit war each other. Please write your article off Wikipedia and let me know when you are ready and I will be more than glad to comment. While you are at it, you may want to read this article Level of support for evolution Regards, Igor Berger (talk) 22:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Branded Asset Management

The original CSD nom wasn't mine, but I agree that the article has potential.--Deadly∀ssassin^(talk) 06:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I did some wikifying on it. If you find any online resources add them in. Igor Berger (talk) 07:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I googled it, and unfortunately I can only come up with some corporate sites. --Deadly∀ssassin^(talk) 07:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, we do not want to taint the article with some corporate Spam. The area is relatively new. Big corps still think supply and demand not customer service. So better leave it as is. I found this Brand management, which we may want to link from to this article and vise versa. Also searching for "brand management" you may find a bit more resources. Igor Berger (talk) 07:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please Stop Edit Warring on Anti-Americanism

I don't understand you. You complain about large edits made without dicussion or consensus, then you participate in an edit war over a large edit made without discussion or consensus. The article has focussed on anti-Americanism as a form of prejudice for as far back as I can research. It stated its topic was prejudice well over a year ago, as I pointed out to you on the Talk page. The longstanding consensus has been that it is primarily about a kind of bias against American policies/culture/people. So why are you suddenly insisting, with very little discussion, that the paragraph be hacked in the name of consensus? Life.temp (talk) 03:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep the discussion on article's talk page. I reverted your edits per discussion on Talk:Anti-Americanism‎ Igor Berger (talk) 04:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My topic is your behavior, so it seems better not to clutter the Talk page of the article. You did not revert "per discussion" because the discussion has not reached an agreement yet. Please wait for (or contribute to) consensus. Life.temp (talk) 00:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The love

Just doing my part And thanks for the acknowledgment. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

George W. Bush

Rolling Stone is probably not a good source for evaluating US presidencies.JackWilliams (talk) 23:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think it is just Rolling Stones opinion. In the article it states, "In early 2004, an informal survey of 415 historians conducted by the nonpartisan History News Network found that eighty-one percent considered the Bush administration a "failure."" But I do understand your consern about the source. Can we find another source, because it is true that he is the worse president. Igor Berger (talk) 23:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is Washingtonpost says the same. Igor Berger (talk) 23:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who is the worst President is a matter of opinion, not fact. Are you suggesting that anyone who doesn't think that President Bush is the worst President ever is simply wrong? --SMP0328. (talk) 23:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to history, it is not an opinion. If you do not feal comfortable with my edit, bring it to the article talk page and let's get a consensus. Igor Berger (talk) 23:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another link by a Ph.D. in American history Just do a Google search "Bush the worst president in us history" You going to get tons of sources per WP:V, WP:N, and WP:RS. Igor Berger (talk) 00:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have clarified your wording to make it clear that those two people feel that President Bush is the worst President ever. That's the fact. Please don't POV push anymore. --SMP0328. (talk) 00:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm pretty sure you can't use fair use images on your userpage —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.12.159 (talk) 01:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are editors here who want to remove your reference to that poll. This is to give you a chance to respond. --SMP0328. (talk) 01:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for heads up, but nothing I can do, but is protected..:) Igor Berger (talk) 01:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trolls

Hello. Feel free to bring this up on the article's talk page. --McGeddon (talk) 12:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I will repost the text to the article's talk page. Igor Berger (talk) 12:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nijongo do deska?

Umaku narimashta? Moshi shitsuya areba, boku ni kite kudasai. Oshiyete ageru. Mata Ne! Igor Berger (talk) 01:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Konninchi wa. Watashi ni ha wakarimasen. -- Cat ^chi? 15:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Daijobu, ima kara! Shiro neko - white cat gambate, Nijongo benkio shte. Soshtara, Nijon ni kuru toki wa, omoshiroy ni naru..:) Igor Berger (talk) 15:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re Star Trek image

Hello, Igorberger. You have new messages at Voyagerfan5761's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tuvok[^T@lk/_Improve] 17:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Testing maybe...

I see your point. I didn't understand at first, but...he's looking for a block. Cheers, Lindsay 22:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Was blocked for a month. I would have indefed him, but the blocking admin only gave him a month. Terable case of vandalism. Igor Berger (talk) 22:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Social network aggregation

its been on the talk page all day, buddy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.36.147.198 (talk) 18:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC) Not EVERYTHING has to go through consensus discussion. That info is in violation of policy, as it is just original research - an opinion as to why something exists. 128.36.147.198 (talk) 18:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a WP:CSD deletion. If you want to propose deleting the article, nominate it for WP:AFD. And please stop vandalizinf the article, just because you do not like or agree with it. Follow the Wikipedia policy. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 18:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SHOW ME where I put it up for CSD? You CAN'T! I did a prod and then an AFD. So stop saying otherwise. I just did what you said to do (before you erased the messages from your talk page.) Angrysusan (talk) 18:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Social network aggregation

I see you and Angrysusan going back and forth on the AfD tag placed on this article, and I'd suggest leaving the AfD tag there. The best place to discuss this would be on the AfD discussion that is now ongoing which is linked in the actual AfD tag. Please do not remove this tag, as this is not a vandal edit. Wildthing61476 (talk) 18:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I must have missed it when he AfD it. I was reverting his CSD and told him AfD, but he would not listen and kept edit warring with me and vandalizing the article and my talk page. Igor Berger (talk) 18:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SHOW ME THE CSD you claim to have seen. I guarantee there isn't one in the edit history. Angrysusan (talk) 18:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

here under User:128.36.147.198 before you created your user id.

That link is to one your removals of a talk page message. That IP address shows not edits where a CSD was placed on this article. You're wrong, just admit it.Angrysusan (talk) 19:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop Trolling my page or I will ask for a block. Go about you business. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 19:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: User talk:JzG

No. You shouldn't be asking for a block. It's not sockpuppetry for an IP to register an account in order to start an AfD. And not that it matters, but they never tried to CSD the article. They tried to Prod it before finally taking it to AfD. Will you please just let the issue drop now? Maybe focus on the AfD instead of Angrysusan. --Onorem ♠Dil 19:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I do not need a headech. I will drop it. I just do not want the editor Trolling my page. Check the history from IP=editor form my talk page and the article page. Sorry I got confused by the template of pro and CSD, but I did say to IP AfD it, and di not realize that the IP=editor was nominating for AfD. To many reverts till he listened to me. The issue is droped. Thanks, Igor Berger (talk) 19:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stopping trolling on your talk page is easy. Just remove any comments you don't like, rather than answering them. You're allowed to do that here. Equazcion •✗/C • 19:24, 9 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, wish you would have came earlier..:) It must have been 30 edits between my page and the article. Igor Berger (talk) 19:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two admins declined speedy. So I was following the consensus of the article here Igor Berger (talk) 19:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no, you weren't, because AfD tags are never supposed to be removed, despite previous failed CSDs. You made a mistake, thinking you were removing another speedy or prod tag. Equazcion •✗/C • 19:34, 9 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Yes I made a mistake removing AfD. I would never remove one..:) But with the amount of edits by the editor made me confused. I told the editor to AfD on his first speddy, but he kep edit warring with me. Hate this drama! I realized that I removed AfD when another good faith editor made me alert of it. Igor Berger (talk) 19:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chomsky

If you disagree with Chomsky as a WP:V WP:RS, then YOU challenge the inclusion of the material in article, don't present a hatchet job WP:SYN within the article to make your point. If other WP:RS have different views OF THE TOPIC than Chomsky does (not different views of Chomsky, he is not the subject of the article), by all means include the views of THE TOPIC (which, as I have stated again and again in the talk page, is not 'Chomsky's views of US Terrorism'- it is the actions considered State Sponsored Terrorism). Wikipedia articles are not the place for Ann Coulter-style attacks about the source of material in the article.

I carefully reviewed the material that Ultra, you and Jtrainer have been trying to push into the article against concensus, but there was nothing in that material that was salvageable. Try finding some other source. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 22:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do get what you saying. And I am not pushing anything, but trying to help establish NPOV. Should we maybe take out Chomsky all together? Igor Berger (talk) 22:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. Chomsky is RS and V and commenting on US Terrorism. Find a source that is commenting on items that people have called terrorism and saying that the acts are not terrorism, or (directly applicable to the Chomsky sitation), saying that a particular terrorist act was NOT committed by US. BUT the focus for NPOV is on the topic of the article (US Terrorism) NOT Chomsky. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 22:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. But we need to go back to the old title and talk about Allegations of State terrorism by the United States. Also some of Chomsky referencing text is vague, so unless it can be expanded to have some examples of what are ASTUA (referenced) they should be removed. Like Chomsky about Nicaragua bit, is unsupported with what is ASTUA there. The Army manual thing is good! Igor Berger (talk) 22:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All Comments from You on My Talk Page Will Be Deleted

You seem to spend all your time edit warring. I find you impossible to work with. You need to give reasons for things, not just repeat your conclusions over and over. Life.temp (talk) 03:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can include me in this promise as well, Igor. I'm pretty sick of your lashing out at everyone whenever you're criticized, and I'd rather not deal with it anymore. Equazcion •✗/C • 11:48, 10 Apr 2008 (UTC)

And you seem to not want to be criticized as well. And I did not lash out at you as you eloquently put it, but I contested your edits. But you are taking it personally. Now please respect my edits. Igor Berger (talk) 11:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"I do not agree to this massive deletion."

"I do not agree to this massive deletion." -- That's all you needed to say. For some reason you chose instead to request protection when you saw something happening that you didn't like, but I hope you see now that this wasn't the best thing to do. Next time just voice your opinion. Don't jump to protection, AfD, ANI, dispute resolution, etc. Just talk. It works, sometimes. Equazcion •✗/C • 10:56, 10 Apr 2008 (UTC)

SNOMP

Hi. I have tried to revert this load of original research by the editor, but you beat me to it. SNOMP does not Google at all in relation to the editor's perception of what it means. Not one hit. Well done. Ref ^(chew)(do) 13:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe they think getting it in Wikipedia first, then starting the business..:) No problem, I have a lot of social stuff on my radar. If you know about social media go see AFD one article needs help. Igor Berger (talk) 13:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Been there, done that, voted Keep with re-write. User had even started removing references to it in "See also" sections, which I also reverted. A bit WP:CRYSTAL as far as the result of the AfD goes. Social network aggregation, right? Ref ^(chew)(do) 14:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you mean. It is also hard to do things in commonsense. I think we all come from different walks of life and to do things in a constructive matter is a bit difficult because we all have our predispositions. Well let's hope it is a keep. Igor Berger (talk) 14:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AA

Weeks or months, there will just be warring when it's unlocked. I didn't just take an interest--I've been watching it for three years and have the most edits to it (last I checked). The best we can achieve is semi-stability. I would rather actively edit, tightening the screws on sourcing and making it hard to mount a delete argument against sections. Marskell (talk) 11:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great, okay I will leave it in your hands. I am glad I was not alone in this. Thank you, now I feel better and can go back to watching my regular soaps, Geraldo Rivera..:) Igor Berger (talk) 12:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, see for instance: User:Marskell/Sandbox. A short, sourced section that covers both recent events and wider history. Marskell (talk) 12:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to keep the improvements I made to Definitions and Usage, East Asia, and the first paragraph. Marskell (talk) 09:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I revert and you fix it! Igor Berger (talk) 09:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Social network aggregation

Hello, Igorberger. You have new messages at DeadlyAssassin's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Pic

Not that it isn't terrible, but the deaths at Hiroshima and Nagasaki are generally not estimated above 150,000. What concerns me is moving from "this is anti-Americanism" to "here are historical justifications for anti-Americanism." It should be done carefully. Marskell (talk) 19:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. My father in law is from Samurai family and he told me with the firebombings and radiation deaths - 10 mil. Read the article:

Of roughly 100,000 deaths, provided by Japanese and American authorities, both of whom may have had reasons of their own for minimizing the death toll, seems to me arguably low in light of population density, wind conditions, and survivors' accounts. With an average of 103,000 inhabitants per square mile and peak levels as high as 135,000 per square mile, the highest density of any industrial city in the world, and with firefighting measures ludicrously inadequate to the task, 15.8 square miles (41 km²) of Tokyo were destroyed on a night when fierce winds whipped the flames and walls of fire blocked tens of thousands fleeing for their lives. An estimated 1.5 million people lived in the burned out areas.

1.5 million Japanese civilians died by Firebombing of Tokyo in World War II Igor Berger (talk) 19:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course this has a rise of Anti-Americanism in Japan, but Japanese people suppress their emotions and do not speak out. Remember toda they are still quazi-colonialized by America. Igor Berger (talk) 19:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we can start a new article later on. Alleged atracities commited by the United States There is enough material out there to build this. It would be a good article for project discrimination and project politics. Igor Berger (talk) 20:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to Let You Know...

An editor who is involved in edit war with you left a report at WP:AIV here. I rejected the request and left an edit summary directing them to the other boards.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 01:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like violation of WP:NPA. I filed a AIV report on him because he is pushing his agenda on the Jewish articles. Please have a look at his editing history. Igor Berger (talk) 01:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well AIV is not the place for that, try WP:3RR or WP:ANI. I do see he his on the verge of breaking 3RR. Kafziel left this warning shortly after my message: 1.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 01:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that he is adding missinformation to the articles in violation of NPOV. I was just reverting his vandalism. Should I take it to 3rr? I am not editing these articles but just have them on my watch list because I added a wikilink to it. Check his contributions and see what he is pushing there. I just told him to discuss on talk page and get consensus to the edits, but he started edit warring with me. What is the best way? Igor Berger (talk) 01:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well his edits are not exactly definable as blatant vandalism but rather disruption. If the editor reverts back to his version for a 4th time (which he is one away from), he will have violated WP:3RR. I do not recommend continuing to revert his edits though. It would better to allow someone else to do it so you wouldn't get close to reaching the borderline of 3RR. You can submit the report though if he continues.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 01:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually User:Kafziel reverted his POV, so now it is his move. We should check the rest of the articles that he edited. A bit of a mess of what he took out and what he put in! Like "Jewish people evacuated from Russia", vs moved from Russia to Israel - the original edit. You see my point..:) The twilight zone Igor Berger (talk) 01:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:State terrorism and the United States

Point taken. Apologies. Tomayres (talk) 09:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

illegal

thanks ! I had a lot of discussion about this in the past. It's not illegal but like you said "breached the sovereignty.." it's not the same. In fact, Argentina and Israel made peace about it, so it's not illegal in retrospect anyway, also according to Argentinian law. It's wrong to say that, it's only inflammatory, and it's not what the source said, it's original interpretation. Amoruso (talk) 02:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello...

Hi. With all due respect, I agree that there are some problems here, but you seem to be viewing them through the prism of a viruently anti-American media source or sources there in Asia. True, the dollar is taking a dive and there's a problem in the housing market; I've lost all my equity for the time being due to declining values. On the other hand, we have nearly full employment and the Dow Jones has never been higher. I'm also fortunate enough to live in a desirable area which is expected to rebound before the end of the year. The problems we're facing are not only short term, they've been blown out of proportion IMO by media on both sides of the aisle because of this election year and I'm speaking from a conservative viewpoint. Take a look at Michael Savage's website or listen to his radio show to see what I mean. Heck, he doesn't seem to like anyone. :) I made my earlier comment thinking that you were speaking as a non-American and not an expatriate. That's why I removed the comment. Thanks for being polite about it on my talk page. Regards, --PMDrive1061 (talk) 07:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the real life American issues and global issues are complex, you cannot just say America this and that in a vacuum! But what we here at Wikipedia having a problem of some editors who are intent to delete any article that criticize America, abortion-article, psuedoscience, waterbording. The are say this article are attack on America! Is this rational? Igor Berger (talk) 07:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not. You're absolutely correct. The spirit of this project calls for neutrality, meaning that a subject, especially a complex one, needs to be presented warts and all. I've seen articles on abortion rights and liberal politicians mangled by the right wing and the articles on Bush, Reagan and conservative commentators savaged by those on the left. If you really want to have "fun," ask an administrator how many international users have been blocked for arguments over Serbia/Turkey relations over the years. I have to give you credit for choosing to edit such contentious articles. Sorry about my initial reaction. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey my proud american brother you are a good man! We the people of the United States of America for whcih it stands as one nation under God for Liberty, Justice, and Truth pledge the alligence to this nation! These are sacred words written by holly people. This is America, not the crap it has become today! Be proud to be an America fight to save America from the extreme eliments of bias, towards its people and other nations! Igor Berger (talk) 17:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, bro. I appreciate it. Guy who's been my best friend for more than thirty years is pretty liberal. We've always had interesting political discussions, to say the least. It's far more interesting and productive to have an intelligent debate on issues than to talk politics with someone who agrees with you. The rhetoric this election cycle is unlike anything I've seen before, making things sound worse than they are. Yes, there are problems. Big ones. But, we're a pretty resilient bunch. We'll get through this speed bump like we have hundreds of others. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 20:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well the problem is more serious than you may want to admit. It is about saving Liberty. Please be on your toes! Igor Berger (talk) 20:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your latest ANI thread

Igor,

I thought I'd drop by your talk page for a change. I'm quite happy to remain uninvolved in this, and simply continue our enjoyable conversations at my talk page. To be honest, I haven't concerned myself much with your activities on Wikipedia beyond the initial User:Gohldelocks issue. You're a grownup, so you don't need me holding your hand, and I wouldn't be in any position to take a neutral stance anyway.

That said, if you'd like some advice on this, I'd be happy to provide it, either on wiki or off wiki. My general impression is you're trying to better the encyclopedia (although I disagree with some "improvements", and agree with others), but you seem to be going about it in an occasionally unproductive way.

If you're doing things your way for a reason, then like I said I'll let some more neutral admin handle things. But if it isn't your intent, you might benefit from a change in methods.

Something to think about. That's all I'm going to say unless I hear from you about it. --barneca (talk) 14:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Things are rapidly headed towards an indef block for you, Igor. I know you said you weren't going to participate in the ANI thread started by life.temp, but I suggest you make some kind of statement at WP:ANI#To ban or not to ban. For optimal effectiveness, I suggest:

Removing, right now, the list of Wikipedia editors you've got issues with at http://www.londonfetishscene.com/wipi/index.php/User:Igorberger#BuzzKill. Even Gohdelocks.
Promising to leave life.temp completely alone, whoever you think they are, except for on the actual SSP case page itself.
Not making a long rambling statement, but a short to the point one. Address their complaints.
Assuming it isn't already too late, listen to what they are saying, and consider the very real possibility they are right about several things.

I understand you have suspicions about life.temp, but everyone else there is acting in good faith. They aren't all out to get you. --barneca (talk) 10:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Igor, the point is, if you don't at least say something to that affect on ANI, there likely won't be an RFC. Opinion now is running pretty strongly for an indef block. --barneca (talk) 14:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, give me a few minutes to get my thoughts together and I will respond. Igor Berger (talk) 14:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't respond to anything Life.temp tries to goad you into. Respond to everyone else. --barneca (talk) 14:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what more to say, Igor. Deflecting questions in that situation isn't going to help. I know you aren't a troll, but I'll be damned if you don't seem to be trying your best to make it look that way.

If you end up getting blocked, I'll come by your talk page; perhaps we can discuss, out of the spotlight, and at leisure, what it is people expect of you; it's becoming clearer to me by the second what the problems are. Don't be scared by the term "ban" if that gets tossed around; a ban is a block that no admin is willing to overturn. If I ever reach the point where I think these multiple issues have been addressed, I'll take your potential unblocking to WP:ANI myself. But I'm not going to do that if I don't think the problems are solved. --barneca (talk) 00:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have always been open to discussion with you or any other editors. A few times some editors said that I am being disruptive, but no one came around to talk to me. A few time I was told here is a list of what you doing worng, but never did some one came to talk to me about the list. I wish someone would have came around and tutored me, on what I am getting myself envolved in and how to deal with it.

Oh, my Igor The Troll website, is Human Rights Activism, not about Trolling. The name is sarcastic and irony to show people what a Troll is not, and why calling people Trolls is bad. It is a parody, not a Troll site. Igor Berger (talk) 00:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Community blocking as of April 2008 - indefinite as per details within the template box

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for As per discussion at your latest ANI thread which concluded at this point. Igor you are asked not to remove this warning notice until such time (and if) Barneca the administrator that you nominated as your mentor reaches the point where he considers you are ready to return to Wikipedia mainspace At that time he will note his intention at ANI to unblock you and if consensus is reached then you will be unblocked.. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. --VS ^talk 01:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving the mentoring discussion so far, to encourage others to post at User:Barneca/Mentoring Igor instead

Thank you

Barneca, first I want to thank you for sticking your neck out and say a few words before you do. Igor Berger (talk) 01:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First I want to say that I did not hang out on your page expecting anything. I was not there because you mediated about User:Gohldelocks. I was there even before you became an admin. I found it noce to shoot the breeze and not to talk about wikipedia. I was really supprised that you stood up for me and willing to help me. I really want to thank you from the buttom of my heart. I guess you are not the cranky admin that many think you are..:) Maybe you just standing up for me to show them that you are not! But I doubt that. You are a real nice person, a very good editor, and very diligent and responsible admin. You learned a lot from User:Mastcell. You learned jurisprudence from him. Anyway I am not in the hurry to be unblocked. There is more to life than wikipedia, and I have neglected many things. So I do not feel bad being blocked . In time after talking for a while I am sure I will be unblocked, but I am in no hurry. I feel I got blocked because I stood up to defend a few controversial articles from mass deletion. Do I regret standing up for these articles? No! Would I do it again? No! It does not help! Unless Wikipedia as a community sees that we should defend those articles from mess delition they will be hacked and brough to AFD, again and again. After being unblocked will I attempt to defend these articles again or any other controversial articles. No! I have learned my lesson, do not go against the graine! Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 01:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(typed in before barneca's comments below, I'm a slow typer :)
Igor, I've watched and never commented on or been involved in your edits, so I think I'm qualified to make some observations:

You are effusively praising barneca here - but it has already been noted that you praise whoever you think may help you next. Change this behaviour, look through barneca's edit history and find something to criticize or disapprove of, they are not perfect, don't speak of them that way. Find something less than perfect, then articulate your reasons, explain them well - the practice you need is effective communication, why not start with your mentor?
You seem to be saying that you were blocked because you did everything right and other people didn't understand you. You need to move beyond that view, if you are really so right, wouldn't other people figure that out and come to agree with you? When no-one else agrees, one of the first things you should consider is whether you are in fact wrong. Work through all the reasons you could be wrong, it is always possible that you're the only one who sees the truth (I've been there IRL and been proved right in the end, but it's a rare occurence), but you have to be sure you've taken other people's viewpoints properly into account.
And you also seem to be saying "I will never cause problems again" - which is also not a good thing to say. "Do not go against the grain" is a very cynical thing to say and in fact spending your wiki-life trying to find the grain you should follow is a useless occupation. You need to address the "other" side of conversations, rather than just try to keep stating your point-of-view: listen, understand and accomodate the viewpoints of those around you and work towards agreement.
You have strong viewpoints, but you need to get those views across gently and in a way that other people can understand. Use your own thoughts instead of wiki-words and start with small changes to small articles. Develop slowly, watch what is happening, ask questions, and realize the whole wiki won't fall apart without you. It will all work out, just take it one step at a time. Best wishes! Franamax (talk) 02:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

First I would like to thank you for the note. I am sorry if it seems that I am praising Barneca, but I am not! He showed himself as a nice guy, period For all I know he could be a Dark Overlord I have no idea who or what he is.
Was I right standing up for anti-Americanism article and bringing attention to User:Life.temp? Yes I was.
Do I have a blemish on my record as a good faith editor from before this incedent? Yes I do. If I were an admin, and blcoked Life.temp, nobody would say one word to me. He is bad news! But again this is my POV.
Am I here for any other reason than to help the project preserve NPOV? No I am not!
Can I change to help the project in a more quieter way without making so much noise for other editors to listen to me when I see a problem? I hope so, none needs to ring a three alarm bell to get atention from the community.
I hope the community does not assume bad faith about me.

Thank you for stopping by, and you are always welcome to my page to help me with my problems. Igor Berger (talk) 02:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK Igor, you may have missed some of the points I was trying to make but I'm not going to review that, you can read back over this and check for yourself. And I'm not going to get in the way of your mentor, that's where you need to address your efforts. I will pick up on only one thing here which may help both yourself and barneca, then I'll step back. You say I'm welcome to come here to "help me with my problems" - so, Igor, think it over, and in your own words without using wiki-talk, what do you think your problems are? Hope this helps! Franamax (talk) 02:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My problem I stick out like a sore tomb Igor Berger (talk) 03:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mentoring

Hi Igor, I've never done this before (might have been wise to tell people that earlier, but...) so I need some time to gather my thoughts. Some very, very brief initial ideas:

This is the only place we can do this; your talk page is the only page you can edit. I've experimented before, and you can't edit a subpage of your user or user talk space (which would have been more optimal). So, it's a relatively public place to have a discussion. However, I want to do it on wiki rather than by email.
I am going to have to review a lot of background material here. I need time to digest it.
I have an actual life, so we aren't going to be doing this full time every day. It's going to be slow.
I think a potentially useful first step, while I'm looking at history, would be for you to think about what you think just happened, and explain it to me as clearly as you can. If you think something is your fault, say so. If you think something is life.temp's fault, say it. If you think something is VS's fault, say it. etc., etc., etc. I'm not interested in hearing what you think you're supposed to say, I'm interested in hearing what you actually think. Doing it in list form, rather than long rambling paragraph form, would sure make it easier for me to follow. Later, I expect we'll try to make a clean break from the past and drop old disputes, but for now, I think it's a good starting point. I would hope that for this brief, first step that no one is waiting to pounce on your answers and complain about you saying mean things about them.
I don't anticipate this being a student/teacher or lord/peasant kind of thing, so it's not like I plan on setting down rules like this every day. That would be a little demeaning. But it might work best if we did it that way for a while, yes? Until we worked out a mutually agreeable system?

I'm leaving in a few minutes, I'll talk to you tomorrow. Goodnight. --barneca (talk) 02:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good! I am also in no hurry, so take your time. Goodnight, Igor Berger (talk) 02:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barneca, I thought about it a little bit, as to what to say, and not much seems to come out. I do not really want to say these person did this and that person did that, because I do not think it is productive to anyone. I hope you agree on this issue with me. One editor I have conser with is still User:Life.temp because whatever reports a filled they were not really addressed with respect to this user. Still this is my POV and I should and will let the community address it in due time. I am sure I am not alone. As for all other editors on Wikipedia that I know of, I assume good faith.
So, maybe we should talk about me and not about them, and see how you can help me to come back to the community in good standards. I do recognize I am a very vocal person and ask for more attention than someone is willing to give, for what ever reason it maybe. Maybe this is why the breakdown of communication has occured between me and the editors who are conserned about me. I wanted and still want an oppurtunity to talk things out with them, not just forget about it. I feel adressing problems needs to be mutual, not alone. I hope they come around and talk to me a bit and get things ironed out between us.
But I am willing to put all confrontations behind me for the sake of the amiable relationship in the community. Wikipedia should not be a place to hold some child like grudges against others. Time to move on and look for a brighter future.

Let's start with this and see where it takes us. 13:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Reading material

Momus (artist) Herostratus Holocaust denial Aung San Suu Kyi

Random comments

If you don’t want to list here what you think has gone wrong, that’s fine. Actually, probably admirable you don’t want to blame others in public. Still, I’m at a bit of a loss, because I’m really trying to see how you view it. "I stick out like a sore thumb" and "I feel I got blocked because I stood up to defend a few controversial articles from mass deletion"; is that really all there is to it, you think? If you prefer to do this by email, fine, but I still would like to at least hear what you think you did right and what you think you did wrong.
I’ve started a list below of things we may want to work on. Add to it if you can think of something.
Who’s the reading list for? barneca (talk) 21:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Things to work on (known bugs, as it were)

Added by barneca

(Currently in no particular order, although eventually we should prioritize)

Clarity in communication, per Gwen Gale’s comment on the ANI thread yesterday. Probably would be good to shoot for less (humorous?) wikilinks, more plain English. I think some of this is kind of stream-of-consciousness writing.
Taking criticism. Constructive criticism is not trolling. You have a habit of mislabeling it.
Not a battlefield. f.ex. the now-deleted hit list, and in the general approach to AfD’s and controversial articles. There is no vast conspiracy you’re fighting. Or, if there is, it’s so subtle that you’re going to have to change tactics.
Stay cool. It’s just a website. It’s no big deal. When agitated, leave for a bit.
Don’t feed the trolls. When you are being trolled, you take the bait. User:Gohdeilocks springs to mind because that’s the one I was involved with. Your over-reaction had me convinced for quite a while that you were trolling him.
Conflict of interest on some now-deleted articles you created. I’m not sure of this one, but it’s been mentioned by others. I’m reviewing. Listing here now as it’s a draft.
Policy knowledge. Posts often allude to policies that, when you read the policy, don’t really apply.

Added by Igor

I stood up for some articles, because there is mass deletion problem on Wikipedia. There are also special interest groups here. But unless we as community deal with it, we cannot fix this problem. And this problem is nothing new, but innate culture of Wikipedia, as I latter found out.
Did I get blocked because I stood up for Wikipedia? No, I did not! I got blocked because of my disruptive behavior in addressing this problem.
Did I make a mistake standing up for Wikipedia? No I did not! Will I stand up again? Yes I will. Will I do it in the same way? No, I will not! Why did I stood up for Wikipedia? Because I trully belive and support Wikipedia project and its community.
I believe it is human nature to stand up for what you believe. But standing up and screaming, "The british are comming!" is not what it is needed. This mistake I full-heartedly acknowledge. In the process of trying to help Wikipedia, which I might have done to a certain point, by getting some editors impassioned with the good that Wikipedia stands for, I created a nuisance of myself, made the community lose some respect for me, and maybe even drove some good editors off the project.
I am looking forward to the future. I am looking forward to dialouge not controversy. I am looking forward to working better and more amiable with my peers.

Igor Berger (talk) 22:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mistakes I have made

When I first started with the project I was posting at ANI with regards to cases that I did not know anything about. I wanted to help and tried to give my .02 cents.
Some of my recommendations were good, but unless an editor is an established editor and recognized by the community as such, those recommendations seem out of place.
ANI can be very fast, so in a slow discussion some humor may work, in ANI it can get lost and be a disruption.
Linking to Social engineering Internet essay in ANI was a big mistake.
A few editors came to me to voice their conserns about my actions at ANI, but I did not pay attention.
Not able to properly help another editor who needed help. This could have been because of how the community came to see me, in the light of my past behavior. And, because I went at it in a fanatic way, instead of having the process take its way. I was to persistent in my endavior.
I tried to contribute to policy writing even though I barely have started learing what policy is about.

Will think of more. Igor Berger (talk) 23:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When leaving a comment on editor's page or an article's talk page and not getting a response I assumed per WP:BOLD that it was an agreement after watching what action an editor took after my comment in reference to the comment. This can be tricky and possible to percieve the worng thing. So I need to be extra carefull with assuming BOLD. Igor Berger (talk) 00:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recommendations to the community

I am aknowldging my mistakes, and there are quiete a few of them. But at the same time, I would like to ask why was this not addressed properly for such a long time.
Is there a breakdown of communication on Wikipedia? Are the dispute resolution processes working properly? When I say despute I do not just mean articles, but editor etiquettes.
Fully understanding and agreeing that the editors involved with me, tried their best to help me in the way they knew how, should they not also look inward and ask themselves, why they could not help this troubled editor?
My recommendation to these editors, and it is up to each individual to take it or not, and in which way, is to do some sort of review of how they could have helped me in a faster and more productive way. Please take this as good faith from your fellow editor.
The community as a whole, needs to reexamine the dispute resolution process with respect to articles and editors behavior. Bringing every case to ANI, and one, two, three lets go back to work may not always work, atracts unnecessary atention and stress to all parties envolved.
Medition is the best way to go, as I feel I and admin Bernaca are doing now.

23:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Recommendations by VirtualSteve

- Here, again, is this persistent mistake that you make and the thing that you will have to address very clearly with more than just a flurry of words Igor. I say this because you appear to be conveniently forgetting that many, many editors have attempted to discuss your mistakes - almost from day one of your editing. You have at almost every occasion used a glib turn of phrase to acknowledge those comments and then simply continued in your errant ways. You continue to ask for help and then when advice is given you repeat the request by asking editors to again explain to you their concerns and then you do not address or answer them in any way. An example is the closing comments by yourself at the last ANI - but there are many, many more. You criticise the system of ANI when in fact it works very well and indeed you publicly indicate that you will not go there to respond - and then when you do go there at the request of another editor - you comment before admitting that you have not read the material - which in effect initially is placed to assist in helping your "troubled editing". You have personally and on many occasions refactored many of the positive comments that editors have left you so as to appear in the right (and you maintain these comments as your own database), you then go to attract the attention with further glib words of praise to other admins and editors before leaving personal attack messages about this or that editor with whom you are displeased and then at times you increase the attacks on those editors by scurrilously attempting to link them to an off-wiki "health perspectives" website (you have used this method of defence on at least two occasions that I am aware of) as if that editor is part of some CIA conspiracy to stop your free speech. Igor I expect that you can not see how you posting simple comments such as the above will not address my concerns, and I think probably many of the communities concerns that you are in fact changing, but I will nevertheless leave this comment so that you will understand that position.--VS ^talk 23:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Steve I am trying to listen and take your conserns into effect. My off-wiki activities are rants, you have to read them with a grain of salt. I apologize to you for putting you on my sily childish list. Please talk to me. Igor Berger (talk) 23:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am sorry that you feel I refactor, but I believe I do not or do not do it intentionally. I archive my talk page and do not delete anything from the archives. Igor Berger (talk) 00:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I feel ANI is very fast and too much to read all the comments at one time and respond to many questions at the same time. When editors raise questions to me, I never or almost never ignore their conserns and always try to respons positively to the best of my ability thanking them.
  - At times I may thank an editor for comments, but it does not necessaraly mean I undesrtood every thing. But it does mean that I read the comments. Then I try to apply to myself what I read, which may take time to do.
  - If you say ten things to me, I will consentrate on the one's that I think are the most important in priority. I never ignore what other editors tell me. Igor Berger (talk) 00:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Igor - with respect you need to stop typing so that you can actually start reading and thinking - your quick fire comments to only small parts of the serious concerns as expressed above and those provided by many other editors require you to back off for a few days so that you can take some time to reflect. Quite simply if so many different editors - and there are 20 or 30 at least - are indicating you are in error then you can take it to be pretty well true. In addition you appear to be trying to meet the community's expectations even before you have given Barneca a chance to go through your editing history in detail. If you will be patient and wait for a while you will let him have the chance to assist. More bluntly, I certainly will not be supporting your return to wikipedia mainspace at any next ANI until I see you consider every one of those issues and the issues that Barneca brings, so that you can show us that you have actually been thinking about them - rather than just giving us what you think is the right answer.--VS ^talk 00:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - VirtualSteve, I am reading everything everyone says. And I am trying to address everyone's conserns. I understand this is not a simple process, and it is more complex than giving a few sentences as a reply.
      - I fell the introduction was the main points of consern, and I am open to discuss each point at lengh.
      - Also I am not in the hurry to return to Wikipedia space, and willing to wait till all conserns by the community are addressed. So, not looking or expecting a quick fix to this problem. Igor Berger (talk) 00:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment VirtualSteve I understand you have many conserns with me, and I would like to and willing to discuss every point with you. Please let's see what Barneca say before we talk more. Igor Berger (talk) 00:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added by other constructive editors

(if unproductive, as defined by Igor or myself, it will be politely removed)

Your failure to actually read the tag I placed on Social network aggregation, persistently reverting without even looking at the edit, similarly removing my comments trying to explain without even reading them, and accusing me of trolling. Angrysusan (talk) 23:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I aknowledged my mistake and have apologized to you, on your talk page. I apologize again. It is possible for all of us to assume bad faith and make a mistake in the process of editing. Igor Berger (talk) 23:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added by NewbyG

Igor, I have to go along with what many other editors are saying - you talk too much at times, and about things you are no expert in (please don't take offence). Talk less, listen more, and don't be personal in attacking editors, even those who may be making "bad edits". Take your time, as I said to you on my talk-page, we want good editors, you can be one if you over-come the problems being pointed out to you. Take it slow, you have people "on your side", but you upset a lot of people too. You never have upset me, and I will be watching this page, hoping that User:Barneca has the time, and the patience to help you. It is up to you Igor, you need to make real changes, (difficult, I know) your communications upset too many people (not me, as I said). Forget about that User, that is past. Talk to us, Igor, in your own words, don't take on too much and get out of your depth. I hope it all works out for the best. Peace --NewbyG (talk) 02:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, for your guidence. Igor Berger (talk) 02:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added by Gwen Gale

While looking in my talk archives I stumbled across this older thread with Igor (he begins by asking about David Irving as a source). I'm linking it here because it seems to show at least three big mistakes in his thinking about sources. Perhaps at a fit time, if deemed helpful, Barneca can step Igor through this thread. Igor, there is no need to reply to this yet, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Things that are red herrings

(While mentioned in the ANI threads, I personally don’t think these impact your ability to edit here productively)

The name “Igor the Troll”. Preliminary review of off-site webpage seems to indicate your claim of “sarcasm” is believable. Not used on-wiki, so shouldn’t be an issue.
Claims of nebulous affiliation with Wikipedia on external websites. Not our problem, though perhaps not wise.

A tad overwhelming

This is almost a continuation of the ANI thread. One of the few comments Igor made in the ANI thread I found convincing is that it's hard to respond to people listing 10 things you've done wrong when there's a threat of blocking looming over your head. Now that the block has actually happened, let's take it slow. I must say I find it a little overwhelming myself, and imagine Igor finds it that way too. Igor, I like the idea someone mentioned above to just not post for a little bit, and reflect. You, I, and others agree this isn't going to be a quick process, so give everyone especially me a time to breathe. We're compiling a list of things to talk about; let's not actually talk about them yet.

Sorry to keep changing the rules of the game, I'm feeling my way thru this. I'm going to copy everything here so far to User:Barneca/Mentoring Igor. Can I ask those of you with specific incidents you want me to keep in mind to list them there, instead of here? Igor won't feel the need to respond right away, I'll have a chance to digest things, and we can postpose the beginning of an actual discussion until early to mid week next week. --barneca (talk) 15:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Attempt at Mediation Mentoring

Admin User:Barneca has refactored my talk page because the Mediation Mentoring process was being addressed problematically with respect to me and Barneca. With the spirit of Wikipedia transperancy to editing and mediation process, I am providing a diff link to the origal discussion that has been hidden on my talk page. For the sake of transperancy and faireness please do not revert my edit or remove this message. Igor Berger (talk) 20:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Igor,

Per my comments above, are you OK with waiting until next week to really get going? --barneca (talk) 20:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I have no problem with that. Let's just avoid wikidrama. This is not suppose to be another ANI. Please post the material and email me, because I may not be checking my page everyday. Thank you for your attention, Igor Berger (talk) 22:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The mediation sandbox between me and admin Barneca has been temperaly deleted User:Barneca/Mentoring_Igor Igor Berger (talk) 08:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Per my deletion reason: "Igor has told me he doesn't want to return for a while. If/when he's interested on working on this, I'll restore it." --barneca (talk) 13:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barneca, I am interested in talking things out, so please email me. I just think it is good to get a dialogue going so when I do come back, I do not have to experience the same problems. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 22:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Israel article

Hello Igor, I am new here and it seems that I went a bit too far by inserting a (sourced) paragraph about discrimination in the article about Israel. I would appreciate if you could take the time to give your voice in the related discussion. Springwalk (talk) 12:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about writting an article Discrimination in Israel Igor Berger (talk) 00:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked on what articles are available on Wikipedia that deals with Arab discrimination in Israel. Anti-Arabism#Israel Arab_citizens_of_Israel#Allegations_of_discrimination Allegations of Israeli apartheid If you look at article United States there is no talk about anti-Americanism on the article, which is appropriate because the article is about the country not the issues. But if you look at the buttom you will find a template box that talks about issues, and there you will find anti-Americanism Template:United States topics
On article Israel there is no Template:Israel_topics which I believe there should be. Maybe you were not aware but I am idef blocked right now, so I cannot comment on Talk:Israel. But I recommend that you propose on Israel talk page to put the Israel topics template in the article Israel. Or you can atempt to be WP:BOLD and add the template into the template area of article Israel which is hidden, but will be visable when clicking show. If you do add this and reverted by another editor please do not edit war in trying to keep it in the article, but try to get a consensus for this edit on the article's talk page. Regards, Igor Berger (talk) 03:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the ban. I was looking for advice and you are giving it. So thank you for that. I'll follow it.

The comparison with the US article is not decisive. The Zimbabwe article shows a specific section on Human rights. I contend that issues should be presented if they are not held by a minority but is that against some guidelines?

Cheers. Springwalk (talk) 07:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are no real guideliness as to what goes into each article. But pretty much we go by the similar format of other articles in the same group. Of course you can nominate the inclusion on the article talk page, but to incorporate it into the article you will need to get a consensus for the edit from other established editors of the article. Try to work in baby steps. Do as I recommended first and see what is the outcome. By the way, I am an Israeli. I believe in transperancy for my country. Igor Berger (talk) 09:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reading

Light, carefree summer reading list for the beach? --barneca (talk) 13:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I just like learning and understanding the relationship between history, society, and theology. Not too light..:) Igor Berger (talk) 22:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These are some articles that I read! Not necessarily I want to edit them, but I may add or subtract something if I find it relevent. I do not really have a predefined set of articles that I am attracted to. I find something that interests me, I read it, and try to improve it. Igor Berger (talk) 23:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Advocating for Wikipedia
Wikipedia on Digg Criticism on Durova on Digg - Durova and David radio interview
Please come and participate in a public Wikipedia Roundtable room on Friend Feed Administrated by User:Durova and User:Igorberger

Rachel Marsden wikipediarachelmarsden.com http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Igorberger

Human Rights Activism Human Rights Advocating for Emisteve If someone likes to help please build this article Emisteve You can read their story on my Travel in Asia forum Emiko and Steve Human Drama Igor Berger (talk) 03:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pithy thoughts

A man becomes strong when a man is at his weakest. As Jesus Christ said, "The meek shall inherit the earth!"

Intent to edit

Oden_(icebreaker)

WikiProject:Software

Hello Igorberger. You have been invited to join WikiProject Software, a WikiProject dedicated to improving the Software-related articles on Wikipedia. You received this invitation due to your interest in, or edits relating to or within the scope of the project. If you would like to join or just help out a bit, please visit the project page, and add your name to the list of project members. You may also wish to add {{User WikiProject Software}} to your userpage and {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Software/Announcement-u}} to the top of your talk page with the heading ==WikiProject Software Announcement==. If you know someone who might be interested, please pass this message onto others by pasting this code into their talk page {{Software invite|~~~~}} with the following heading == WikiProject Software ==.

Thanks,
Tyw7, Leading Innovations ‍ ‍‍ (Talk ● Contributions) 11:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation

Introducing WikiProject United States Government...

Hello Igorberger,

Are you interested in Politics, Law or the United States? Do you enjoy expanding, creating or maintaining articles relating to those subjects? Or do you enjoy the small stuff? Or maybe you like learning about the United States Congress or the Commander in Chief.

Well, wait no longer, because we have a project for you! WikiProject United States Government is where all the cool Wikipedians who watch C-SPAN hang out! Join the project today and help us get it off the ground and flying.

Thanks in advance, « Diligent Terrier Bot (talk) 21:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC) [reply]

This message has been delivered by Diligent Terrier Bot on behalf of WikiProject United States Government.
You have received it because you are a member of a related WikiProject or you have said you are interested in your userspace.
Message written by Leonard^Bloom and Diligent Terrier.

Help us get the project off the ground and flying.

WikiProject Malware

Greetings Igorberger,

My name is Sephiroth Storm, and I am attempting to revive Project Malware back from inactivity. I see that you have contributed in the past, and I was hoping you would be interested in joining us again. If you would, or you have any question, suggestions or comments, please leave a note on WP:MALW or on my talk page.

Thank You,

Sephiroth storm (talk) 19:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would love to help but I am frozen in time! First I need to get myself out off Wikipedia's purgatory! Thank you for the offer and good luck with the project. Igor Berger (talk) 21:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

User unblocked by John Vanderberg along with this comment - consensus at AN to give a second chance; provisional unblock pending mentoring framework with Franamax; which in part says conditional on his only editing pages within his userspace for xx days. The unblocking admin can set the quantity xx, and I would suggest a further condition that Igor and I reach a satisfactory mentoring arrangement, and that consensus for a full unblock is reached at ANI see here for full comment.

Request handled by: --VS ^talk 09:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

If you wish to make additional comments to the ANI thread, a section can be made below and transcluded there. –xeno^talk 14:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

xeno, thank you for your prompt attention. Igor Berger (talk) 15:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Barneca for your kind words. I have not tried to avoid mentoring and willing to work with an assigned admin so my come back to Wikipedia is smooth. I do believe, as you suggested, mentoring should be done on live bases. I understand I pushed my opinions and been combative in the past, instead of walking away, and maybe tackling the problem later. This is what I learned from my time off from the project. I also realized I did not listen to others at that time, which I must do in order to work with the community. I do appreciate a second chance, and willing to do my best to follow the rules of Wikipedia. I also thank xeno for his support, even though he is not familiar with me. Igor Berger (talk) 16:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem Igor. As there has been some objections raised, I'm not going to be able to issue the AGF unblock that I wanted to. Jehochman suggests a {{2nd chance}} bid. Take a look at the instructions in the template and go ahead and start on that. –xeno^talk 03:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

xeno, thank you and others involved in the consideration to unblock me. I find the Jehochman proposal fare, but I will require help with it, because to be able to make a substantial NPOV edits to a complete article is rather challenging, even for an experienced editor, which I am not. I was thinking of coming back slowly, doing small edits at a time, but it looks like the consensuses is that I need to prove myself as a capable editor first. I will accept the decision of my fellow editors, and try my best to show that I am capable of doing Wikipedia edits to Wkipedia articles. I will require a lot of help from my fellow editors. Would it be possible if someone supervises me on this task? Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 03:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Igor, I am certainly willing to volunteer to watch over your edits in a user sub-page. I would also be willing to take on a full mentoring role - but you should be aware that: I'm not an admin (but I'm pretty sure I could get an unblock on request); I've never mentored anyone before, so it would be new for both of us; and I'm extremely attentive to detail and getting things just right, so I would be a severe taskmaster. I wouldn't be upset in the least if you decline the offer. The ANI discussion may result in you just being unblocked, in which case I (and likely many others) would just watch over your edits anyway.

As far as Jehochman's idea of a "2nd chance", that might be a good way to fine-tune your skills before coming back. It's not the way I would choose really, so as an alternative, you could consider creating a /General page in your user-space and noting there any and all edits you would like to make to any article, showing the "before" and "after" texts. I'll look at them and if they're good, I'll make them myself. You can build a track record that way too.

For now, do you have any specific ideas of areas where you'd like to edit? Franamax (talk) 06:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Franamax, I welcome you as my mentor, if you are willing to take this challenge. As far as the Jehochman's second chance, do I need to create a completely new article or edit an existing article? Creating a new article, I feel I would fail it. While editing Wikipedia, I never succeeded in creating a new article. I failed at the few that I attempted to create. Also I cannot create a SandBox page, it will not allow me to make a new page in my user page, the least edit one of my existing pages. I am willing to work with you per ANI decision as to what needs to be done.

If decided that I needed to edit an existing article, I am not sure as to what to pick in order for me not to be swayed by my POV. Can you recommend an article, that you think can use some editing? Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 06:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's try this for your sandbox, can you edit it? Franamax (talk) 07:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, "You are currently unable to edit pages on Wikipedia" Igor Berger (talk) 07:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah crap, I'll go ask about that right now. Please commit to editing only within your user and user-talk spaces for the next day or two, so that I can ask for an unblock for you. E/C'ed further post follows. Franamax (talk) 07:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as things to work on, you could just click on the "Random article" link a few times and read what shows up with a critical eye. It's really not difficult to find things that need fixing - although I notice that your English grammar is not the best, so you may miss some details. Try it though, at the least you will learn a lot.

And if you want to get into some serious cleaning up, try Wikipedia:WikiProject Check Wikipedia. It's down to less than a quarter-million problems though, so you'll have to be quick. ;)

But you need to have areas of interest too. Why do you think your POV will be such a problem? Can't you put it aside? Write what the sources (all the good sources) say and reflect what other editors say in discussions so that the article is neutral. It's difficult but not impossible, unless you insist on always being right.

And most importantly, what are your interests? Please don't ask me what to write about, though I can give you lots of gnome-work. Tell me/us right now what your passions are, what areas interest you. Yes, they may be the places where you will trip up, but it's best that we all know that from the start, right? Franamax (talk) 07:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've asked for a provisional unblock, with conditions.[1] We'll see what happens. Unfortunately, it's night-time for most of the wiki-world. I thought you could edit your own sub-pages while blocked. I'd test it on my own wiki but that's on a really slow computer.

You'll note that one of the conditions I've suggested is that you and I agree on a relationship, and one of the important bits there will be your answers to what I asked in my two bullet points above: why is POV a problem and what are your main areas of interest for editing purposes? Franamax (talk) 08:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know if I have a particular POV, but I will make sure if I do have a passion, I will check it at the door. I did some SEO work before, so some people may think I have interest in promoting SEO stuff. I do not! I am familiar with social media but it is hard to get reference, and also it may look like I have bias because I've been around that for a while. I am a jew, so my ethnicity does interest me at this time. But I am not interested in getting into any battles and edit wars. I think I am good at gnome-work. I read articles and find small things that need to be corrected. I did Spam patrol before, but you can get in trouble with that, because that pulled me to ANI. I know editors do not want me going to ANI, so I do not want to place my self in a position that will draw me there. Honestly, I want to avoid any confrontation and trouble. Maybe Jehochman can recommend an article for me to edit? I will have a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Check Wikipedia Igor Berger (talk) 08:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I send you my best wishes for a fresh start Igor - I will be keen to see the work you can do with Franamax as your mentor. Congratulations to you both for attempting this return. I note your question about where to start your editing and given your own parameters of not SEO, not Jewish related work perhaps you could choose something aligned with the reading list that you have detailed above over the past 12 months or so. Good luck.--VS ^talk 09:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Igor. I have provisionally unblocked you in order that you can work with Franamax. If you start editing disruptively, there will be many admins who will reblock you, so please dont do anything too courageous. You should ensure that Franamax is aware of, and has approved of, the editing that you are going to do. If you are not sure, ask Franamax to clarify. i.e take it slow to begin with; no surprises, and the "provisional" nature of this unban will be lifted soon enough. Welcome back, John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Steve and John, and everyone else who was involved in my ANI. I hope I can prove myself as a AGF editor soon and gain the confidence of the Wikipedia community. Looking forward to working with Franamax. I am going to be archiving my talk page. Fresh Start! Igor Berger (talk) 09:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]