User talk:Igorberger/05-March-2008-10-March-2008

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Re Ignore All Rules[edit]

Thank you very much for your comment. I'm not Russian. I only know about eight words of the Russian language. But your comment feels right to me. I've taken the GFDL liberty of posting a quote from your comment on my user page. --Coppertwig (talk) 02:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I am glad my comments are helpful. We should avoid hivethink which is just for the sake of civil. As far as being Russian, Russians have a very deap soul and are very obstinate in their believes and their philosophy, as you can see from the Russian revolution and their whole history of civilisation, the writings, the poweful emotional lyrics. Some call them trouble makers while others see them as deap and profound thinkers. Leo Tolstoy - War and Peace. Fyodor Dostoevsky - Crime and Punishment. Pushkin poetry. Very interesting and profound culture. Igor Berger (talk) 02:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

ResistHivethink.png
Igor Berger (talk) 03:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Pharmacology & admins[edit]

Ah, so sweet. But, if there is too much sugar, the pill will be cake. RspnsblMntalk 20:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Blocking policy[edit]

From Wikipedia:Blocking policy

Important note – Blocks are intended to reduce the likelihood of future problems, by either removing, or encouraging change in, a source of disruption. They are not intended for use in retaliation, as punishment, or where there is no current conduct issue which is of concern.

checkuser[edit]

While I appreciate your trying to add evidence to the checkuser case here, that information was not directly relevant to the matter at hand. If you have additional evidence regarding the possibility of sock puppetry, that would be helpful and appropriate. To keep the case clear and straightforward, I removed your comments, which would be appropriate for a noticeboard concerned with NPOV issues. Thanks ! Boodlesthecat (talk) 04:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I just thought people looking at the case should know and understand the situation. If you feel what I have discovered is relevent to your investigation, please use it. Igor Berger (talk) 04:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Nazis and Zionists[edit]

It makes perfect sense, Streicher actually said at the Nurenberg trial that Jews had to be taken as a model. Nazis didn't want Jews in Europe and didn't want those in what they viewed as the Aryan race to mix with Jews. Zionists wanted Jews to leave the West and immigrate to Palestine. An alliance between them would be logical. AS for your being concerned, this is Wikipedia where information and knowledge is supposed to be open for debate, unless of course you have something to hide.--Spitzer19 (talk) 04:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is WP:NOT#FORUM and not WP:SOAP. It is not a place to debate. If you have references per WP:V please add the information to appropriate article. Please avoid original research. By you addiding the information as you did here it shows bias and POV pushing. Make it encyclopedic not POV. Igor Berger (talk) 04:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits[edit]

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button Button sig.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 05:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

If you're not knowledgeable of the situation,[edit]

I suggest you refrain from making inflammatory comment. Rather we are talking about long time disruptions by off-wiki board. Thanks. --Appletrees (talk) 15:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Editng Wikipedia does not require any particular knowledge but an understanding of WP:NPOV and WikiCommonSense. Igor Berger (talk) 15:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
No, the article and related pages are under the Arbicom's special probation. Do you think the disruptive off-wiki activities which strongly have influenced to those articles are commonsense? --Appletrees (talk) 15:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
How do the off-wiki activities impact the WP:V of the articles? Igor Berger (talk) 15:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
The source does not say about Japanese name, so any editor who wants to place the Japanese names of the geographic names before Korean name, provide sources for WP:V. And you're confusing the situation since the ANI. If you don't know anything, please refrain leaving non constructive comment. Regards. --Appletrees (talk) 15:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
A source can be found to support either or POV. Igor Berger (talk) 15:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Please Stop Lying on Anti-Americanism[edit]

You are obstructing any meaningful progress on this article, and you are flagrantly lying to do it. There is no consensus to remove the tag about neutrality. Here's a clue: if you are in an edit war with three people, you don't have consensus. While you are posting on my Talk page advice that I compromise, why don't you tell your buddies and yourself to compromise also? Your suggestions about compromising have been directly at just one person (me). A guy who's idea of compromise is just getting what he wants won't help the article. --Bsharvy (talk) 02:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Please read Talk:Anti-Americanism#Undoing_the_Warning_Templates and Talk:Anti-Americanism#Undoing_the_Warning_Templates_.28arbitrary_break.29 The consensus is that the article is NPOV and the POV warning tag should be removed from the article Anti-Americanism. Please do not reinsert the tag, you are edit warring with all the editors involved with the article! 02:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC) Igor Berger (talk) 02:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:ANI[edit]

Hi there. Just a courtesy note to point out that you're being discussed on the Administrators' Noticeboard for Incidents here - Alison 06:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 06:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Check this out[edit]

I see that you asked user:Jehochman to block you for 30 days. He quite properly refused. There's really no need for that. This gadget allows a user to enforce a wikibreak on themselves. Of course, you should be very careful when setting the expiration time. Cardamon (talk) 17:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks[edit]

Please cease with your continued personal attacks and unfounded accusations against User:VirtualSteve that you are leaving at User_talk:Jehochman#Request_for_a_30_day_block_from_editng_Wikipedia. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --ZimZalaBim talk 23:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Per the above warning, I have blocked Igorberger for continued disruption on my talk page. Take a break, Igor and hopefully come back with a better perspective. Jehochman Talk 23:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Igorberger (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribs deleted contribscreation log change block settingsunblockfilter log)


Request reason:

I contest the block and would like my Wikipedia namespace ban case to be taken to ArbCom! There was no unanimous admin agreement in ANI thread about the ban! The Wikipedia policy clearly states that to impose a community ban on an editor all admins must agree. And admin User:Black Kite clearly did not agree with the ban. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Break_4here Igor Berger (talk) 23:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This is not a 30 day namespace ban. It's a 24 hour block for disruption and being un-civil. As such it does not require that all admins agree. You can edit again at 23:39, 9 March 2008. — CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 00:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Igorberger (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribs deleted contribscreation log change block settingsunblockfilter log)


Request reason:

I went to user Johochman page to talk about the Wikipedia namespace ban that he proposed here and here He was involved admin and clearly has WP:COI so he should not have blocked me. Even admin User:Rlevse said the Jehochman should not have blocked me here When I went to Jehochman page, I was not abusive, but requested an ArbCom hearing. my request for ArbCom on Jehochman page the whole conversation and my reasoning for an ArbCom request Please unblock. Igor Berger (talk) 00:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Your block was for comments like this. Please don't place another unblock notice or I will protect this page as well. — CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 00:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.

An admin allowed to call another user meatpuppet, but not an admin editor cannot suspect an abusive admin of being a meatpuppet? Is there a problem that Wikipedia admins have with interpreting policy? Admins call Wikipedia users: socks, meatpuppets, puppet masters, trolls, all in good faith! Igor Berger (talk) 00:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, the abuse you engaged in on Jehochman's talk page was quite repulsive. I suggest walking away, cooling down, then coming back. (And for the record, we're called such things all the time.) Orderinchaos 02:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Procedural notification[edit]

Hello, Igorberger. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. - I am informing you as a part of process only. Thanks to Jehochman for dealing with this matter so quickly.--VS talk 23:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikibreak enforcer script[edit]

Hi. I saw a comment by you on User talk:Jehochman and I thought you might find this useful: it's a script that people can use to enforce their own wikibreak -- sort-of like blocking yourself: Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/WikiBreak Enforcer. --Coppertwig (talk) 02:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

This is not about enforcing my ban. This about removing me from partipation in consensus of building Wikipedia. The propoced 30 day ban of Wikipedia namespace can be extended indifenetly. This was not agreed by all the admins involved, still the ban was passed. I proposed a 30 day 'block instead of a ban to Jehochman, but he refused it. If I have been disruptive as per some accusing admins, I should be blocked from editing Wikipedia not removed from forming its consensus. This decission needs to be passed by ArbCom. I am requesting an ArbCom hearing. Igor Berger (talk) 02:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I think you might be confused. There hasn't been (as far as I can tell) any 30-day ban enforced. Rather, if you look at the block log and the relevant message here, you've only been blocked for 24 hours due to the very reason you suggest: "If I have been disruptive as per some accusing admins, I should be blocked from editing Wikipedia". --ZimZalaBim talk 02:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Then what is this? admin User:El C says here and User:VirtualSteve talks about "Ban template or warning notice for clarity" here And if the bas has not been eforced why User:Jehochman did not inform me of that, when I came to his talk page complaining that I was banned? He just let me complain then he blocked me! This is not nice, I always respected him as an editor and came to him for advice! Why did he decive me like that and not just say, "Igor WP:COOL, you have not been baned yet!" Like you just told me. Thank you, User:ZimZalaBim for explaining to me. This continues wikistalking, trolling, and harassment by VirtualSteve of me since the day one we met is really unnerving to me! It is like he is on some mission to have Wikipedia rid of me! Igor Berger (talk) 03:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
It is exactly what it says in the block log and the blocking message above. The 2 admins who reviewed your request to unblock also pointed out that you were blocked for 24-hours for disruption and personal attacks. I suggest you take advantage of it to take a break from WP, and perhaps avoid interaction on articles with those who you have experienced conflicts with. --ZimZalaBim talk 03:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I have not really experienced conflict with good faith editors on any articles. I have contribited a bit here and there all in good faith. I have been doing Spam and vandal patrol, clening up and reverting the mass. Never got into a revert war with any of the good faith editors. I never violated any policy. I always respect the rules and policy. I have been mediating on a few articels like hummus and [[anti-Americanism]. I try to help editors in the dispute resolution by mediation and providing third opinion. I had a few of my articles AfD and MfD so I participated in the debate. I also joined a few deletion debates. But I was never disruptive in the process. If some people want to misconstrue my POV of the consensus process to label it disruptive and call me incoherent, should I not object to defend my good name? I would like to contribute to more articles, but articles that deal with recent events of history are hot spots, so we need to aproach carefully to them, if not the place ignites like cinders. I mean I would like to edit the true encyclopic articls like psychology, liberism, progressivism, biblical articls, etc, but I find I am still lacking the skills needed to contribute to that area. Plus there is not much wrong there, being the origanal contact was brough in from encyclopidia Britanica and other major encyclopidias. So I work with what needs to be fixed, including policies, which are problamatic at the least. Igor Berger (talk) 03:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Explanation[edit]

Igor, we may be wikifriends, but I cannot let you use my talk page as a platform for attacking other editors. Wikipedia has much higher standards of civility than other Internet forums, such as Slashdot. I hope you will keep this in mind when you return. Either avoid the people you've been arguing with, or try to smooth things over with them. You could use the next 20.5 hours to research, or write an article offline in a text editor, and when the block expires you can post your work; or maybe you prefer to work on a blog post. I do not know the status of any topic ban. Check the noticeboard. If you have not been given formal notice of an editing restriction on your talk page, I personally do not think it would be effective. Jehochman Talk 03:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

User:VirtualSteve thinks I am already on community ban of Wikipedia namespace, "Igor is currently on a community topic ban detailed below" here And I am told by you and User:ZimZalaBim that I am not on community ban. Now do you understand why I came to you? I thought I was not able to go to ANI. So I came to you to asked for ArbCom hearing. I totally object to Wikipedia namespace ban because it prevents me from participating in building Wikipedia consensus. I even offred to have myself blocked for 30 days, but not banned from WP namespace, but you said no! Do you see the fervor of VirtualSteve towards me, to get me off Wikipedia? He has been watching my every edit for the past 3 months, and incouraging other editors to complain about me, in every wikipedia discussion process. That is why he does not want me at ANI, not because I am being disruptive, but because he wants me gone! So, let him bring his case to arbcom not continue his pursuit of canvasing for consensus to support his POV. I remmember you advised him to walk away from me, that was about 3 months ago. The undertoe, advised him the same. But did he listen? No, he kept following me around taunting me in every move. He even sent a sarcastic email to me a couple of times. I have been trying to avoid him WP:AGF for a long time but he has been on his mission to prove me a bad faith editor. So, what can I do? Igor Berger (talk) 04:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Igor, it will help greatly if you stop making accusations against VirtualSteve. I would be happy to ask him to cease taking an interest in your affairs. I cannot guarantee how he'll respond, but if you follow my advice and leave him alone, things will work out much better for you. I really want to help you overcome these misunderstandings. Jehochman Talk 04:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
J, believe me, I want to have nothing to do with him. I really am not interested what are his personal interest in the project! And I am always assuming good faith, but he is not towards me? So I started to question his motivation for exhibing such hustility! I stay away from what he does, but he tends to follow me to every discussion. He even made an oath in one post to keep watching me deligently! Is he my supervisor? Why does he have to get involved in every confrontation that I may or may not have? If someone comes to complain about me, he joins in harmony! Why just let those discussions take place on their own? I really advise him to take the case to ArbCom if he has a beef with me, but untill then he needs to stay away from me. Igor Berger (talk) 04:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Arbitration is the last step in dispute resolution. They are unlikely to accept a case at this time. I just posted to WP:ANI to help clarify the result of the topic ban discussion. It seems that there is no ban. I urge you to please focus on article space for a while. You need to go slow and learn step by step. Jehochman Talk 04:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your help. And I am not angry at you for blocking me. I just wished you would have told me to have a tea, because there is no ban! I always respected you and Durova for the work that you doing being good ambassadors on behalf of Wikipedia. I will try to stay way from ANI, because I do not want to inflame the matter. Igor Berger (talk) 04:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

<-Igor, at this time the community have reduced patience for dealing with you. Could you please stick to article space for a while and be non-contentious. If you can demonstrate a history of writing articles, people will show more patience towards you. After a month or two you can move into some project space areas, and later on return to the noticeboards. For now, definitely stay away from all notice boards. Search engine marketing, social media, social media optimization, Web 2.0 and meta data all need help. If you work on them, be sure to cite reliable sources, not blogs. All those articles are on my watchlist so I'll keep an eye on them. Jehochman Talk 04:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Jehochman, the SEO articles I have only been protecting from Spam as you know. I have not even added anything to them or added any linkd to them. Honestly I am not even interested in SEO! When I first came to you, I asked your advice about making articles for Andy Beard, Michael Gray, and David Naylor, but as you saw what happened, when I tried to do an article about Andy Beard, VirtualSteve deleted it, so I gave up on those type of articles because I realized how difficult to find secondary sources per WP:V on them. I will keep an eye on SEO articles for Spam, but not interested in editing them. Also if from time to time someone brings a new article related to SEO companies and or social media, I may nominate that article for delition if I see the article does not meet notability. I really have no interest in SEO or social media networking articles and companies! I ocassionally post on Andy's blog, because we make fun of Google and Matt. That is about all, that is my envolvement with regards to SEO! Anyway, I cannot promiss that I will stay away from all policy related boards, but I will try my best not to get involved in unnecessary confrontations on these boards. On those boards, I tried to give advice, but sometime best advice is no advice..:) Still it may not be possible to prevent that I in a process of mediating an article disruption by talking on article pages and on user pages, will get some biased POV editor enraged at me, and he my come to complaint about me to ANI. How can this be avoided? How can you discuss and debate how to build an article by consensus, if someone believes they are right and the rest of the editors are wrong? It happens quite often on articles? So what do you do about that? Just stay away, that is not a solution, because if you do Wikipedia articles become a mess of POV not NPOV built by consensus. IF you have an advice for me on how to edit articles without creating problems, I am all ears. Igor Berger (talk) 05:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I left you advice on your talk page last month; it's now in your archives, and I think it more than covers suggestions on how to edit without creating problems. MKoltnow 06:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Your assistance requested[edit]

Yo Igor, I saw your listing at Wikipedia:Editor assistance and I was wondering if you could help me resolve a NPOV-related dispute. The article concerned is CrimethInc., an anarchist collective. The issue is whether or not a series of reviews (critical and positive) of CrimethInc. publications should be included as external links in the article. Some of the proposed links are currently included and quoted from as references. User:In the Stacks thinks that all of the links should be included as external links, and that using them as references instead is effectively burying them and thus a violation of WP:NPOV. I think that references should not be duplicated as external links, and external links to book reviews which are not suitable as references (for WP:RS reasons etc.) should only be linked from the book article, rather than CrimethInc., the publishers article. There has been edit-warring back and forth for months on this issue, and I would most appreciate it if you could weigh in at Talk:CrimethInc.. Regards, скоморохъ 17:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

You do not need to repeat the same links from references in external links, that is Spam. The reason for putting the links in reference is commonsense, to support the content of the article. If the editor is unwilling to understand the editing article consensus take the issue to ANI. Igor Berger (talk) 22:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Igor, much appreciated. скоморохъ 22:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

30-day restriction[edit]

Hi. Please take a 30-day break from the Wikipedia space (unless there's something directly pertaining to yourself). It's just getting too much, it's interrupting day-to-day operations, and we need a break. Please take the time to observe, instead. If you really object to these restrictions strongly, feel free to appeal at the arbitration page. In my view, just editing articles for the next month would go a long way toward proving you're not here to entangle our limited resources (you have to appreciate that a consensus of admins agrees that, up to this time, this has been the result of your Wikipedia space edits). Thx in advance and feel free to follow this up with questions. Yours truly, El_C 19:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this is good advice. You are very likely to get blocked for longer and longer periods of time if you do not listen because a high proportion of your recent contributions in these areas have been disruptive. Understanding does not happen overnight. Given time, you will become more familiar with Wikipedia's norms and be able to participate constructively, I sincerely hope. Jehochman Talk 19:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
To be clear, a community sanction is definitely in place because there was a consensus, and El C has now given you formal notice. Jehochman Talk 20:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Igor, I just saw this, and I'm a little disappointed at the way this came about, and I'm not personally convinced that such a formal topic ban was really kosher. However, I also happen to think that based on recent events, it's pretty good advice, and hope you'll take it in that spirit instead. If nothing else (although it is definitely an option), I have a feeling that fighting this is going to take more of your time and cause more frustration. --barneca (talk) 21:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I really thought I was able to reach Igor with my closing rational at the AfD, but his 'CIA conspiracy' and "Wikipedia totalitarian regime" reaction, has since convinced me that it would not make much sense for use to keep going like that. I do think it's fair. El_C 21:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Well than block me for 30 days! Because to restrict me from editing in Wikipedia namespace is depriving me the right to participate in building Wikipedia consensus. So please block me from editing Wikipedia for 30 days. Igor Berger (talk) 22:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but I'm unable to comply. Why not just edit articles. Again, feel free to edit Wikipedia space if it involves yourself. Thx. El_C 22:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Just take a break by yourself[edit]

I don't know why you want to be officially blocked for 30dyas by admins? That would ruin your reputation more. Just get easy, have some great wine and relax! --Appletrees (talk) 22:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

You got to be kidding, it is impossible to edit here. The just protected my user page from editing because I wrote Wikipedia is censored it is a totolitarian regime. Just by deleting it yjey are censoring Wikipedia. Igor Berger (talk) 22:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
(I left my computer for a bit, and in the mean time Appletrees said pretty much what I was going to say) Igor, you're a grownup. If you don't want to edit for 30 days, then just don't; a block isn't necessary. But being blocked for 30 days would also "deprive you of the right to participate in building Wikipedia consensus", and will, in addition, prevent you from doing anything else. Elsewhere, I've seen you say you're willing to do pretty much what this ban says anyway; please don't fight it just because of the perceived insult. A block would make it that much harder for you to return to Wikipedia space in a month. --barneca (talk) 22:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
"Totalitarian" is an unacceptable attack, especially seeing how we have been so patient with your less-than cogent, uninformed style. El_C 22:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
It is not an attack, but a political ideology. Same like zionism, fascism, anti-Americanism. Igor Berger (talk) 22:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Also it is sarcasam and irony, and you should not take it personal. But if you are so conserned with my statement maybe you need to ask yourself, "Is Wikipedia becomeing a totalitarian regime?" Igor Berger (talk) 22:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
The attack part regards the insinuation (due to the timing of the Wikiepdia is Censored section) that those of us supporting the restrictions (i.e. the vast, overwhelming participants in said discussion) are part of a "Wikipedia totalitarian regime." We do have a policy in place to guard against soapboxing. Inflammatory expression directed at other editors is not permitted. El_C 22:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
If you feel I am violating a policy file a complaint at ANI. Igor Berger (talk) 22:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I am actively involved in enforcing the result of a complaint at ANI, whereby the vast, overwhelming majority of participants felt you are in breach of policy. At the event, there is a note about that specific bit, but it's not key. Thx. El_C 22:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Like I said, I am protesting the ban to Wikipedia namespace because that action is totalitarian. So you do what you have to do. Igor Berger (talk) 22:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Stop posting random nonsense as you did to User talk:Raymond arritt. You've been warned enough about this, and any further delusions will lead to sanctions. seicer | talk | contribs 19:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry, but what have I been warned about? I posted my POV with respect to what User:Raymond arritt is commenting on WP:SPADE. This I posted on his talk page here. If you think what I have posted has no relevency, please delete. Igor Berger (talk) 22:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is censored[edit]

I and other people tried writing articles about Wikipedia percieved behavior by the Internet community. All these articles get deleted. Id this not censorship. These articles get deleted eventhough notability is establsihed per WP:V. If notability is not established per WP:V this articles should be userified, but they are not. They compeletely delited from Wikipedia. Wikipedia has a problem with criticism. This is hurting Wikipedia!

Igor Berger (talk) 23:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Try expanding on Criticism of Wikipedia and stop wasting everyones time thanks. -- Longhair\talk 23:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. Looks like a great article. Igor Berger (talk) 23:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Igorberger, please get a blog and feel free to write about your own thought. That's all I can suggest to you at this time. --Appletrees (talk) 23:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Have a look at this The powers that be Igor Berger (talk) 23:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, Igor, please do get a blog or journal and you can write there to your heart's content about Wikipedia, and whatever else you wish. But Wikipedia is not a hosting facility or a free personal site or a forum; it's a serious project. As for "Wikipedia is Censored" - of course it is! If it wasn't, we'd be hosting all sorts of garbage, nonsense and crap. When people say, "Wikipedia is not censored", they mean in the sense that our articles are not censored for minors and may contain content others find offensive. But it most certainly is censored in other ways, eg you cannot add BLP-violating material spewing through all our biographies. It's quite obvious that Wkipedia is censored in some ways, I'm really not sure why you keep talking about this censorship issue but I really recommend you take Longhair's advice and stop wasting people's time. I am starting to wonder if you are actually conducting some kind of breaching experiment on the community. Having those rubbish, nonsensical, non-article pages deleted is most certainly not hurting Wikipedia. What is hurting Wikipedia is this sort of nonsense. Sarah 00:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Then you should start deleting Anti-Zionism, Flat Earth, Anti-fascism. waterboarding, pseudoscience, homeopathy, anti-abortion, and the rest of POV articles! Igor Berger (talk) 00:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Also, are you saying I am Social engineering Wikipedia? Igor Berger (talk) 01:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Igor. I posted the "Ignore all rules" thread above in which I thanked you for a comment you had posted, and I have a quote by you prominently displayed on my userpage. That shows that I have respect for you. But, I don't necessarily agree with everything you say. In Wikipedia, you may be able to have an article containing a sentence like "Some newspaper articles say that Wikipedia is censored" (if you can find sources to back that up), or maybe not, maybe it would have to be more specific, "Articles in the Daily Blab, the Foo Mail and the Weekly Star state that Wikipedia is censored" or something (again, if sources can be found to back that up.) But you can't have an article that just says "Wikipedia is censored." as a full sentence without prose attribution, that is, without saying who said that; and for the same reason you can't have an article with a title like "Wikipedia is censored". It would have to have a NPOV title, maybe something like "How Wikipedia selects information"; maybe that wouldn't be acceptable either -- it can be hard to find the right words. The same applies to any other statement; it's not just statements like "Wikipedia is censored" but also statements like "God exists" or "List of people who went to heaven alive" or "J. Smith is a murderer" etc., i.e. almost any statement about anything, unless practically everybody agrees that it's true, such as "the Earth is round". To me, all four titles above appear to be POV and therefore not proper Wikipedia titles. You would do better to discuss and get consensus on the title before creating an article like that. I may be able to help you come up with NPOV titles for articles you want to create. Rules are not made of stone; but they aren't nonexistent either. Regards, --Coppertwig (talk) 00:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

But these type of article titles are okay? Anti-Zionism, Flat Earth, Anti-fascism. Are these titles not POV? Igor Berger (talk) 00:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Sure. Anti-Zionism is an article describing the movement of people who oppose Zionism; those people might have a POV, but the article itself is not. What would be POV is an article titled Zionism is bad. See the difference? --ZimZalaBim talk 00:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Exactly, so by some logic Wikipedia is censored is not POV. Igor Berger (talk) 00:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Also, Anti-Americanism is not POV but a political ideology opposing American Imperialism. Igor Berger (talk) 00:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
No, you're not understanding. Anti-Americanism describes the notable phenomenon of people who hold a POV against America. Wikipedia is censored is, itself, an opinion. If there was a notable movement of people who believed Wikipedia is censored, and there was notable coverage by reliable sources of said movement, then, and only then, an article on something like the People against censorship on Wikipedia might be appropriate. What you are suggesting is merely a point-of-view essay. --ZimZalaBim talk 01:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • We need to define what is censorship on Wikipedia and not ban and block Wikipedian editors because they want to particpate in the debate of forming a consensus on the Wikipedian policy of censorship. If we ban and block editors from participation in the forming of consensus that is Totalitarianism Igor Berger (talk) 00:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Unless I missed it on the news, wikipedia is not the state and you are not forced to edit this private website. --Fredrick day (talk) 01:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a state but a virtual community, which is a pseudostate; hence, we can apply politic ideology, like "Wikipedia is not a democracy!" Igor Berger (talk) 01:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
and when the community decides it's had enough of your disruptive activities and asks you to stop - how is that an example of totalitarianism? --Fredrick day (talk) 01:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
You call me disruptive because I am having a discussion about Wikipedia policies? Is this not what totalitarianism ideology is? No criticism of the system - state - virtual community. Igor Berger (talk) 01:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a public domain[edit]

Wikipedia is not a private website, but a public domain, supported by the contributions of the public to the Wikimedia foundation Igor Berger (talk) 01:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Neoconservatism[edit]

Wikipedia virtual community`Neoconservatism ideology is not WP:NPOV and it is hindering the building of free online encyclopedia. Igor Berger (talk) 01:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)