User:Franamax/Igorberger

First steps

Editing in my sandbox, per AN decision

Added section on Wikipedia editing

I prefer no one comments on it at this time, because it will sideline the original intent of "Second Chance" of building an article. We can talk about this latter. For now it is just my thoughts. Igor Berger (talk) 16:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Editing Oden Icebreaker

Edited Oden_(icebreaker) article. Please check User:Igorberger/Sandbox 21:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, other than the grammar error you made ("not only it can"), it's not bad, but your change is quite vague. Any vessel can serve as a stand-alone vessel. Do you mean a stand-alone research vessel? Cargo ship? Helicopter base? So it would help if you could clarify what exact purposes other than ice-breaking it can accommodate.

And there may be more you can do. It looks like the ship is currently involved in an Antarctic research project, and just the minor detail that it was the first non-nuclear surface vessel to reach the North Pole (in 1991). ;) It even has its own Google Earth tracking link, though I couldn't figure out how to zoom in on it.

I found all that stuff with just a little searching online. I was able to find several relatively decent sources, though I stopped before absolutely nailing down the "first to the Pole" bit. Maybe this would be a good project for you to work a little more on. Getting your grammar right is important, even though other people can fix it later, you need to try very hard to get it right the first time. And I would be interested to see how well you can research and cite sources, which would also help to satisfy Gwen with a concrete example of your skill.

So: not perfect but not horrible. I think you can do better though. Keep trying! Regards. Franamax (talk) 05:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

See also discussion ay my talk page here. Igor, let's keep as much as we can here on your talk page. I'll take a look at your latest changes. Franamax (talk) 11:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem. We will keep the discussion going on my page. If I need your help, I will just come to your page to leave a note. Igor Berger (talk) 11:25, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, so your latest changes in your sandbox were to say that it can function as a "research vessel" - why? Because it was the first thing I said? Where did you read that it was a research vessel? Put all the links (or book pages, if you've been reading a book about the ship) right here, then we can figure out how to properly cite the sources. And same thing for saying it was the first conventionally powered vessel to reach the pole - why do you say that?

For now, just place here on this page the links you're relying on for your changes to the article. See WP:LINK for how to do that. We can work through how to properly cite a source in the article itself after you've done the basic research. Franamax (talk) 12:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Can function as a research vessel, I got from here http://www.sjofartsverket.se/templates/SFVXPage____1077.aspx

The first conventional powerd vessel to reach North Poll, I got from you. Do you have reference? Igor Berger (talk) 12:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I probably could give you the reference. But I left it specifically for you after I saw it. If it's me editing the article, that doesn't really help you, does it? I saw a mention at one of the Swedish sites (from googling "oden icebreaker"), then I think I googled "oden north pole 1991", but I'm not sure. It would be nice if you could find it yourself.

The research vessel bit - OK, but all you're doing is re-reading the same reference already in the article. To actually add to the article, you will find something new or add explanation. How is it used as a research vessel? At the very least, the scientific paper I found on-line about the stress sensors in the hull on the North Pole voyage; or the current Antarctic mission, where it may be being used as more than just an icebreaker - it looked like it may have some research functions also. But I don't want to write it for you Igor, I want you to write it. If that's too tough, you can look for something easier to work on. Franamax (talk) 13:03, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Added reference to the non nuclear vessel from secondary industry source. http://www.polar.se/expeditioner/swedarctic2008/english/oden_unique.html I have to take baby steps, so I can learn how to edit article. Please bare with me. What is next? Igor Berger (talk) 13:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

If possible, you should find a definite source, such as a news article from Sweden, or commentary from an independent polar news site. Alternatively, search for "non-nuclear first ship to north pole" maybe, to see if the Oden claim can be disproved in favour of another ship. I think you found the first ref that I did, I will look later and I will be disappointed if I find more by myself. I'm hoping that you will learn to do good research on your own, not just follow my clues. Franamax (talk) 14:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I actually found the link before I read your clue referring to the Swedish sites. But you did point me in the right direction. Keep holding my hand and do not let go! ;-) Igor Berger (talk) 15:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• Found nice pictures of an expedition, but I do not think we can use them because of licensing? http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/multimedia/2007/12/ff_arctic_ss Igor Berger (talk) 13:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they are very good pictures, no, I doubt we can use them from the wired.com website. But it looks like the author of the pix may work at Woods Hole O.I., so you would need to check at their site. It may be government funded research with a public release for images, so you never know until you check. That reminds me, when I was searching around, I saw some Commons images come up, not sure if they're all shown in the photo gallery. Franamax (talk) 14:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• Maybe we can start a new section on the article concerning the current expedition? Do you have a link to such information? Igor Berger (talk) 13:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure, it's your sandbox. Give it a try. It might end up being better as "Expeditions", describing all we can find; but for noe, have a try at "Current expedition". Franamax (talk) 14:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I will have a search for the Current expedition link. If you have one, please help. Maybe later can expand and elaborate on other expeditions. Rome was not build in one day, neither will this article. Wikipedia is timeless!?! Igor Berger (talk) 15:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Searched for Oden icebreaker expeditions and found the right link http://www.polartrec.com/high-arctic-change-09 There are 3 expeditions 2009, 2008, 2007. Will make reference to lead members and the mission for each expedition in the area Expeditions. I wonder if I can use pics from the site? Two brains better than one, as long as we going in the same direction! Igor Berger (talk) 15:34, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, added 2008 expedition. Please take a look. Igor Berger (talk) 09:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I also added the 2007 expedition. I think describing these two expeditions is enough. If a reader is interested, he/she can research further. The article has improved compared to before. What other modifications would you suggest? Igor Berger (talk) 11:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Igorberger, yes I've been a little busy and sorry for that. Also, I've been waiting to see how your enthusiasm and research skills develop. I've just spent a little while looking over this situation with the Oden. I'm glad to see you've made progress! I'll go through my items, ending with a critique of what you've done so far.

• In re your question to Xeno, I'd asked you to stay in the sandbox for a few days and unfortunately got busy for those same few days. So morally, I can't insist that you stay in your sandbox anymore. For large changes, I think it might be better if you stick with the Oden article in your sandbox, just so we can talk things over a bit more (see my comments, soon to come). I promise I will pay more attention now, so let's say two more days and if you're not getting feedback from me within a day at most, you should go ahead and make article edits.
• Also, I was thinking that you might be proposing small edits to other articles - fixing typos, finding references, adding categories, the kind of small stuff you'd initially said you'd be comfortable with. For those kind of minor fixes, I would turn you loose almost immediately, but you haven't proposed anything. But it's good that you've put effort into the Oden article! (more to come) Franamax (talk) 09:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• And I was still focussed on that North Pole cruise and the early history, which I just spent a few hours on. Here is a good link for the Southern Ocean programme [1] which also confirms the North Pole date of Sep 1991 along with the German breaker Polarstern. It doesn't specifically say "first conventional powered vessel", but it's from the NSF website and backs up the other source. Here is another source [2] making the claim that it was the first conventional ship and describing the large collaboration of international scientists involved. It seems like a very historic voyage. Here is a link to another historic voyage, the first surface traverse across the Canada Basin, with the USCG Healy in 2005. And here is a link to a PDF from a US military site that seems to say that Oden was of a brand new design concept at the time and gives some great details, diagrams and everything. When I click it, it wants me to save it then open, but it works fine when it's loaded. You can get the HTML version through Google "oden polarstern north pole first vessel 1991" on the 2nd page of results, but the HTML doesn't work well, since it's a scanned document. So there's definitely a lot of history with this ship. Franamax (talk) 09:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• Now I've just gone through the edits you've made to the sandbox Oden article and put in my critique in [square brackets]. It may look a little harsh, but I've deliberately made comments to my ideals on how to properly develop articles. You're not expected to measure up to all of that just to edit here. [3]
• Igor, you're at the stage now where you're a fairly bad but not totally awful editor. You do have some idea of what's required. There are a lot of things you're not good at. Grammar, citations, reading multiple sources in a critical way - you will need to get better at that. None of those are reasons for me to prevent you from editing articles, lots of raw editors do the same thing.

Directly editing articles

• The main thing is for you to watch your behaviour. You can start making those changes to the Oden article if you want, but I will tear them apart immediately, and someone else may be watching that article and will do the same thing. The key is for you to not get upset when your edits get reverted (which they may) or changed (which they certainly will); if you think a revert is wrong, bring it up calmly on the talk page but don't push the issue; and always try to think of a better way to phrase your change and look for a better source to support what you think should be in the article.
• I'd prefer to spend a little more time discussing your sandbox edits so that we can get the Oden article right. I'd rather see you making the changes in your sandbox and eventually to the article, because otherwise I would just go and rewrite the whole article right now - she's a great ship and I've learned a lot about her! But I won't stand in your way, it's up to you. I'm back now, so I can pay more attention at your sandbox too.
• Just be aware that when you start editing mainspace, it may be a rough ride at times. Don't get upset. Come back here to ask me anytime, and I will be sure to let you know if I disapprove. Working more on the Oden sandbox is up to you. Franamax (talk) 11:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Next step going live to article Oden

I am going to incorporate my changes to article Oden main space. You are welcome to revert me, keep something that I added, bring the discussion to the article's talk page. I will leave it in your hands. I think doing it in the sandbox is to sterile and in the vacuum. Doing it live is realistic. per WP:BOLD Igor Berger (talk) 15:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

We can always come back to the sand box if and when needed. Even work at both simultaneously. Igor Berger (talk) 15:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, modified the lead, and it looks much better. Still need to work on expeditions but will take time. Oden was involved in military expeditions and oil drilling expeditions. There is just so much stuff to read about Oden, and then think about how to arrange it. For now I am just doing small edits in the main space on different articles. Oden does take a lot of energy and love. Thinking of adding a section on design and modification. Will build up Oden with time! Igor Berger (talk) 23:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

My Wikipedia Experience

Moved to User:Igorberger/Mentoring, not to interfere with Second Chance article editing. Igor Berger (talk) 12:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Mentoring agreement

Hi Igorberger, the terms of your unblock are generally described here. They include working in your sandbox (for "xx" days, which weren't specified by the unblocking admin), and reaching a satisfactory agreement with myself. I would propose the following:

• You mostly confine yourself to article content edits (and article talk edits) for the next two months.
• You refrain from editing any article or article talk pages concerning malware for two months.
• You refrain from mentioning your theory on "Social engineering Internet" for six months.
• You send me at least one email right now so that I know the lines of communication are there.
• Send me at least one email before posting on an admin page on any ongoing issues, for the next four months. I check my gmail regularly and can respond in thirty seconds to five minutes once I read it. Formal wiki-posts take hours.

If you will agree to these, I'll agree that you are free to edit generally. I'll post to AN to confirm such if you wish. I'll continue to monitor (and change) your edits and offer my advice, which I hope you will consider. I would also expect that you would check with me when you're unsure of how to proceed or when others are raising concerns, for four months or so, or until I tell you it's no longer necessary.

I'd prefer to bat around the Oden article a little more in your sandbox, but it's your choice.

I think that these terms will let you gain some good experience in article-building in uncontroversial areas, which is what we all want. Any and all of the above are of course subject to the judgment of the unblocking and any other reviewing admins. Franamax (talk) 13:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Franamax, I agree and will consult with you if I feel there is a problem. Having arguments in public space is counterproductive and waste of time. I would like to venture out and make small edits from time to time. If I will feel an article maybe controversial, I will consult with you before attempting to edit it. No edit wars! Igor Berger (talk) 13:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Hummus article dispute

My apology for creating a bit of a mess, but this was not my intention what so ever. I came to the article in good faith after noticing an extreme change in the article's direction. I have edited the article many times in the past, and was taken by surprise by all the negativity that I received. Will explain more later as I put my thoughts together. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 07:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for taking my time, but I had to deal with a few pressing issues. As I said before, I came to the article in good faith, and not to create disturbance. I placed the tags, because I believed the article is not NPOV, and I still believe it is not. We just do not know who has invented Hummus and we should not assign a specific period of history to one person or another for creation of the dish! Furthermore, I feel I was attacked by many editors when I came to have a discussion about my POV. Also, I feel discrimination by being forced off the article by Admin Gwen. I, as well as any other editor has a right to edit this article. Igor Berger (talk) 00:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I am going to talk to admin User talk:Humus sapiens about a new article Free Gilad Shalit Igor Berger (talk) 19:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Igor, I've read the post you made on your blog. I find it very difficult to believe your assertion that you came to the Hummus article in good faith. Your comments indicate that you see a single word in that article as part of a campaign to destroy the nation of Israel. You need to extend AGF to other people if you wish the same courtesy and you haven't done that at all, instead you've pulled on the mantle of persecution. Further, you're canvassing off-site for editors to support your own POV - that's a no-no and just might get you blocked again all by itself.

And now you're continuing in the same vein by advocating for an article on Gilad Shalit, presumably in addition to our existing article on Gilad Shalit? I'd really very strongly encourage you to stick to what you assured me and many others was your purpose in asking for an unblock: to make small article edits and do some wiki-gnoming. You haven't really done any of that. Did you think the edits to the Oden article were the only test, and then you would be free to do whatever you wanted? You were wrong. If someone were to ask me if you have lived up the terms of your unblock, I would say no, not at all. Please dial it back and try to just improve the encyclopedia. I seriously doubt you will get any more chances if/when you get blocked again. Franamax (talk) 21:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Writing a satire piece on my personal blog that is my right, as many other editors do, including User Durova. I did not name any editors on my blog, so I did not violated any Wikipedia policy about off wiki stalking. I also did not ask any editors off Wikipedia to edit article Hummus. I do not see what is the problem? Why is my blog always being brought to Wikipedia? Editors even scrape my blog by bringing the total article to the project talk page. like was done with article Hummus talk page. I did not give permission for my content word per word to be used on Wikipedia. And yes, I am wiki-gnoming. I tried to edit article Hummus but was chased away from the article. I came to an Israeli editor to ask his opinion about an Israeli issue article. Is there something wrong with this? Is it because I am a Israeli that I am being chased away from Jewish and Israeli related articles? I am confused here? I am trying to assume good faith, but please help me out here! Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 21:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Franamax, I have checked the Gilad Shalit article and will take a look how I can integrate the "Free Gilad Shalit" Web advocacy movement into the article. There is sufficient verified sources to add the content. Igor Berger (talk) 22:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Your blog is mentioned on-wiki because it gives an indication of your state-of-mind - that is one of the purposes of blogging, to give insight to the thoughts of an individual. It's interesting that you would now claim that it is a satire piece, I thought it was a pretty hilarious read myself. However, looking at the tags, I don't see "satire" or "humour" or "farce" listed. You respond to the commenters at your blog in perfect seriousness. If you are truly engaged in satire, you better make it a little more clear.

And yes you did ask people to edit Wikipedia: "I implore all the righteous God loving Jewish and Christian people to come to Wikipedia and fight to defend Is" and "Please visit the article Hummus to start your defense of Israel and the Jewish people".

As far as giving permission to people to "reuse" your content, it's perfectly legitimate to quote your words from another site, only enough of your copyrighted content is used to illustrate an essential point. It falls completely within our non-free guideline. You yourself have added quotes from blogs, into an article no less. Why do you get special treatment?

And it is not at all because you're Israeli that you are being "chased away". We have many Israeli contributors, both Jewish, Muslim and Christian who edit well here. The problem is that you are bringing a very one-sided POV to your editing in a very contentious area of Wikipedia. Many many editors have arrived at these articles convinced that they are in possession of the one truth, so many so that the Arbitration Committee established a set of remedies, which you should read about at WP:ARBPIA. Gwen quite rightly page-banned you as a discretionary remedy under that case. Put quite simply, you were causing more problems than solutions. There is no patience anymore for people fumbling around to find the best way to edit on such contentious topics. And I'll remind you that it's all totally your own fault, you could have politely begun discussion at the talk page, instead you chose an aggressive approach. Your own approach to editing is the problem, and that is what needs to change.

I'll repeat, it would really be best if you avoided controversial areas for, well, quite a long time, until you have gotten more skilled at discussion and resolving conflicts. You could at least try to implement my recommendations for the Oden article, at least fix your incorrect wikilink. Franamax (talk) 22:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I will take a look at Article Oden wikie links. I did not realize there is a mistake. I am glad you enjoyed my satire piece. But as with every comedy there is a grain of truth! I am not going back to article Hummus, not for quite sometime, anyway! I do not think it is editable - it is a war zone! Wikipedia mirrors society and amplifies it. Would you not consider this as ad hominem? "Unbelievable.. the nerve of these people. The Israelis have taken over every single Arab food and culture article and claimed it as theirs, Israeli sections are longer then Arabs ones." --Supreme Deliciousness User talk:Supreme Deliciousness[4]. I did not realize how sensitive and polarized Wikipedia has become. Before I was editors edit warring about tags, which I did not do. But only placed it on the article. In retrospect, know what I know now, I would not place the tags. But the article is still biased and not NPOV! So how can you even recommend a change on the article's talk page! Has Wikipedia become "their articles" and "our articles" as User Supreme Deliciousness clearly states? Igor Berger (talk) 22:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Oh, and yes, one word is important especially if it changes the whole meaning of the article. Levant is NPOV, Levant Arab is POV. I mean how would Spaniards feel if we were to change from Columbus discovering America, to Toyotomi discovering America? I wanted to preserve NPOV on article Hummus, as Gwen tried to do for yers. But here her edit confused me as double talk[5] She reverse an editor back to Levant, stating in edit summury it is Lavant not Levant Arab. And then she makes it Levant Arab herself. Enigma Igor Berger (talk) 23:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

After e/c. Just drop the whole Hummus article bit. Just drop it. Franamax (talk) 23:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• You bloody well did know there were problems with your proposed edits to the Oden article, I indicated them clearly at your Sandbox. I'm left to conclude that you read the first few comments I put there and decided to ignore the rest. As I commented earlier, you have a choice to be a conscientious editor who reads and responds to comments or a careless and sloppy one. I can only try to help you with that, if you choose to ignore me, you can still edit, but you run a far greater risk of having your edits reverted as being sloppy and careless edits.
• No I did not "enjoy" your "satire" piece - because I do not believe it was satire.
• For now, and for quite some time, don't worry about other people's edits, just worry about your own edits. It's pointless to point at what other people do as an excuse for your own actions. That's not how a wiki works. Concentrate on making your own editing style perfect. Represent other people's POV too, not just your own "side". Be calm and unconfrontational, especially in I-P areas, if editors are using ad hominems, you can be sure that someone else will be watching. You are not the front line in a war for truth.
• Yes of course you are not going back to the Hummus article - not ever. You are banned from it. Maybe at some point in the future Gwen will lift the ban, but you have a whole lot of improvement to do before that happens.
• And no, en:wiki is not a war zone. It is you who is taking the view that if there is disagreement, and since you must always be right, there must be a war. It is within your power to drop that attitude and work towards peaceful editing, which includes repsecting both sides in a conflict. It's your choice. Blog posts such as the one you recently made only show the choice you've made. Franamax (talk) 23:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Truth be told Igor, I think you're trying to make en.Wikipedia a war zone and you are headed for a swift reblock. As for enigmas, there is no enigma, I was fixing my own mistake after being told about it, a mistake which I'd made in haste whilst cleaning up something else (mind, I was in such a hurry I took their word for it about the source, which I questioned and got an answer on further down in the thread, I'd also checked the wrong source, so there's no enigma there, either). As the article shows, reliable sources strongly characterize the dish as Levantine Arab. As for Christoffa Corombo, he didn't "discover" America and so far as I know, it's been many decades since any reliable source has asserted he did. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Gwen thank you for explaining your edit to me. I was confused. I tried to look up the book but it is not in Google books, so I was completely lost. Is there this book? If there is, do you have a link to the page were it says Levant Arab? I would like to see just for my reference. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 23:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

If you had read the whole thread you'd have known the answer to that question. You should drop the topic of Hummus on en.Wikipedia now. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

You could try asking at the resource exchange or you could check at your local library. They often have inter-library loans where you can get anything you want. We encourage independent research in reliable sources. Franamax (talk) 23:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

With regards to our email conversation which you said you are sharing with Gwen, I understand what you saying. Do I agree with your interpretation of things, not exactly, but being I am not given a choice, I must adhere to your request. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 00:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, I initiated one email which I explicitly indicated that I would copy to Gwen. Beyond that, no-one is privy to your response or any other email exchanges we might have. I will never pass on any of your private communication without your permission. Never. Gwen received only a copy of my own private communication to you, bcc'ed for her confidentiality (I now realize that I may have compromised your own email address in the process). She will not see any of your replies unless you choose to cc: them yourself. No-one is silently listening in, that's important and it won't happen! Franamax (talk) 01:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Only so y'all know, the same email address for Igor was already in my email client, from last March (I checked). Gwen Gale (talk) 10:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Gilad Shalit Tweet4Shalit

Franamax, I am going to be adding Tweet4Shalit section on article Gilad Shalit. The text is verifiable per Wikipedia reliable sources. If you or anyone else would like to make changes to the text, please do it on the article, with a note on the talk page why you made the change. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 03:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm that's funny, I thought we just agreed that you would sandbox your edits in I-P areas and ask me first. You've been reverted, I'd suggest you leave it that way. Franamax (talk) 03:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Is there something wrong with the edit Gilad_Shalit Tweet4Shalit[6]? Igor Berger (talk) 04:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there are two things wrong. It is pure advocacy, which violates any number of our policies and guidelines; and we just agreed that you would first sandbox your IP edits, so that I could try to help you avoid exactly that sort of problem. In a sandbox, we could look at each sentence. In mainspace, you just get reverted. Franamax (talk) 04:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

So what are the violations per Wikipedia of an advocacy campaign that has reliable references? Igor Berger (talk) 04:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not advocating for Gilad Shalit on Wikipedia, but with my edit attempted too document the Tweet4Shalit campaign, with verifiable sources.. Igor Berger (talk) 05:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

(after e/c) The non-neutral way in which you phrased it? The complete disregard for our agreement to use the sandbox, which follows from the whole reason you were unblocked? I'm not going to discuss it post facto. If there's an IP-related edit you're thinking of, put it in a sandbox and ask me for an opinion. I might ask others for an opinion too. Gilad Shalit is off the table though. When you actually want to work in a cooperative process rather than just testing the limits, we might be able to accomplish something. Franamax (talk) 05:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)