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)
Igor Berger (
talk)
03:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Ah, so sweet. But, if there is too much sugar, the pill will be cake. RspnsblMn talk 20:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
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. |
---|
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Igorberger ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( 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. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Igorberger ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( 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. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
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)
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)
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)
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)
<-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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
Igor Berger (
talk)
03:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Ah, so sweet. But, if there is too much sugar, the pill will be cake. RspnsblMn talk 20:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
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. |
---|
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Igorberger ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( 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. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Igorberger ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( 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. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
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)
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)
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)
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)
<-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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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 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)