User talk:Igorberger

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Vandalism information
Severe
High
Elevated
Guarded
Low
3.32 RPM according to EnterpriseyBot
edit

Talk Archives

SandBox

My Mentoring

Starting over[edit]

OK Igor, how you have to wash the dishes and polish all the mirrors. :) To paraphrase the off-line communication I've just sent you, please spend the next two days just proposing edits in your sandbox snd thinking about where you want to go here. You should feel free to email me for any private concerns, but most stuff should probably happen here on this page. You already have some ideas about where to look for gnomish work and it looks like that's where you'd prefer to start.

Once we both feel good about the plan, we can start with getting you editing and ask for the "provisional" part of the unblock to be dropped. Franamax (talk) 10:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Franamax. I really thank you for your help. Will do a bit in Sandbox, and we will take it from there. Just simple edits are fine for a while, not looking to go fast! I promise when the provisional is lifted to keep my cool and probably not even revert if someone reverts me! Too many articles, not enough time, and I have other obligations as well. Igor Berger (talk) 10:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I did not get the email from you? Igor Berger (talk) 10:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Got it, and got it. tanks Igor Berger (talk) 10:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Well that's not good... [elide remainder of first para since mail was received. 2nd para retained]:
And no, it should be very rare that you revert back when someone has reverted one of your edits. If you get reverted, that's the signal to go to the talk page. See WP:BRD. At that point, you should try to understand what the objection to your edit is, snd work toward a compromise if it's possible. Actually, if you have an edit reverted, you should check the article talk page before anything else. You may have landed in the middle of a huge argument, or you may have done something that 100 other editors have done and there is proof in the archives that they were all wrong, or the reverting editor may have started a new thread to discuss your edit. The edit summary for the reversion may indicate this, but it may not either - there are lazy editors here too, believe it or not! ;) Franamax (talk) 11:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Article talk pages could become quick sand. Prefer to avoid for the near future. So if reverted, will concede! What is not good? Did not parsed! Igor Berger (talk) 11:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
OK now, here again: why would a talk page become quicksand? The only reason is that you, all by yourself, feel the need to keep on discussing/arguing. So you already have the answer inside you - set up your own stop sign. But I don't agree that it should be "avoid talk pages". If you make an edit that you think is valid and it gets reverted, please do make a talk page post. But only one, to explain why you thought your edit was good. Then look at the answers. If someone asks you a question, answer it. If they just express their own opinions though, do nothing. Put your effort into making your first and only talk page comment a good one. If your idea is right, it will last. Franamax (talk) 13:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Franamax, please forgive me for barging in. Igor, do you know how to cite a reliable source? Do you understand that that en.Wikipedia articles are not about truth, but about verifiability? Gwen Gale (talk) 11:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Nice to see you Gwen. I sure do, but not infallible. Did not know who the "David" guy was, but found out later via friends. My apology! Igor Berger (talk) 11:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Best of luck with your fresh start Igor. Feel free to drop by my talk page if I can be of any assistance. –xenotalk 13:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, best of luck. I remember Franamax from last year's discussion, and think he's an excellent choice; already he's giving spot-on advice. Consider yourself "resolved" as far as I'm concerned :) . The rest is up to you. --barneca (ret.) (talk) 14:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

haha, you make feel right at home! Thanks guys. I did not realize I have so many friends on Wikipedia! ;-) Igor Berger (talk) 14:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok will try to do some edits in my sand box other the next few days. I have not slept much over the past few days, so please bare with me. Will try to relax and sleep. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 14:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

First steps[edit]

Editing in my sandbox, per AN decision

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

I've moved this entire discussion over to User:Franamax/Igorberger. We can have all of our talk there, if it's OK with you. That way, your talk page will be for other people to interact with you, and my talk page will be free for any other business about just me. We can talk at length at my subpage set up for you, and I will archive it if necessary. It will all be available other people to review in one place. It shouldn't take that long but we (or at least me) like to discuss things at length, so I think it best to make a subpage. Sounds fair? I'll watch the page and I assume you will also. I've left my latest response there. Franamax (talk) 12:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Ok, continuing the work/discussion on User:Franamax/Igorberger Igor Berger (talk) 12:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Mentoring agreement[edit]

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)

Question[edit]

Do you or have you had another account here at Wikipedia? Tiamuttalk 17:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

As I said there, there is no dispute in the sources. So I won't be participating in that discussion any further. Feel free to retag the article if you like. I don't have time for this kind of misuse of NPOV tags, given the misuse of these tags at another article I am working on: Land Day. Tiamuttalk 17:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Please assume good faith Continue discussion on the article's talk page where it was started Talk:Hummus#Dispute_Levant_as_Arab. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 17:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Your refusal to answer the question is noted. As for Hummus, I've undone my edit and wash my hands of the whole affair. Thanks and happy editing. Tiamuttalk 17:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
If you have a question with my account, please raise your concern with WP:CheckUser You can file your request here WP:RFCU Please AGF. Thank you for re-tagging the article. Igor Berger (talk) 17:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Igorberger, you should bring issues like this up on the article talk page first. You'd previously mentioned to me your worries that you would bring a strong POV to certain areas. Now it seems that you may be doing just that. Remember how I advised you to just say your piece and be done with it? Instead, it looks like you have 4 or 5 editors opposing you and none supporting. That's a really good indication that it may be time to get back to work on the good ship Oden. Franamax (talk) 00:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I did not violate any Wikipedia rules, and I acted very civil, even though there was some negativity around! I have edited the article before and it was always NPOV. I feel there is bias present there. I would appreciate if you can take a look at what has transpired. I am not looking to argue with other editors, but having a civil discussion with participating parties. Thank you for your concern, Igor Berger (talk) 00:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Igorberger, after this lapse, I'm banning you from making any edit to Hummus or its talk page unless User:Franamax, your mentor, has said that edit is ok. Likewise, you may not tag any article for any reason. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Gwen, can I discuss the Hummus article with you? I have a question about an edit that you did? Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 01:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
As I said, you'll need to talk with Franamax about any edits you may wish to make to Hummus or its talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I will discuss with Franamax. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 01:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

(Fourple e/c)

(after e/c) Ah rules, what are they really? Maybe the rule made just for you that you reach agreement with your mentor? Maybe the one about using reliable sourcing? Maybe the one about just plain being a good wiki-citizen?
In this case, you acted aggressively by first placing not one but two dispute tags, then posting to the talk page essentially challenging others to find a reason to dispute your tagging. But you included no RS or rationale except that "Israel is there". You didn't analyze any previous discussions for the benefit of new readers, you didn't advance anything new, you provided no sources. You just tagged the entire article.
Then, you challenged removal of the tags. I've already counselled you to accept mildly any reversion of your article edits, but at the first opportunity, you've instead inisted they remain. Luckily someone else removed them before I had to do it myself. And you are "not here to repeat the debate ad nauseam"? Is that collegial editing? It seems to me that all you are doing is repeating a debate ad nauseam. I see no evidence to the contrary.
I'll just say that I'm disappointed. This would have been one of the spots where you would have been better to back off and seek my advice privately. Looking at the first six posts in the talk thread, do you really think there was no problem that you might need advice on? Franamax (talk) 01:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
(also after e/c: what Gwen said!) Igor, please tread carefully, you are by no means an "editor in good standing" at this time. Many eyes are upon you. You've gone in a matter of two or three days from working hard on an icebreaker article to involving yourself in controversial areas, in a disruptive way. Heads up! Franamax (talk) 01:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
And NO Igor, discuss edits with ME please. Are you proposing to discard the mentorship agreement? Franamax (talk) 01:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
No I am not. I will discuss with you in detail. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 01:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) Hummus article dispute discussion on my mentor User:Franamax/Igorberger page discussion on User:Franamax/Igorberger#Hummus_article_dispute Igor Berger (talk) 12:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Gilad Shalit Tweet4Shalit[edit]

A grass roots activism campaign organized by JIDF to bring awareness to an Israeli soldier kept as a hostage by Hamas Islamic terrorist organization. After 3 years in captivity in a Gaza jail, unable to see his parents or receive visits by Red Cross as granted to him under the prisoner rights of Geneva convention, Gilad Shalit is not forgotten by the world's Jewish community and others. Jewish organization from all sides of life, political and religious are joining in the campaign to alert the world of Gilad Shalit's Hamas Human Rights violations The Israeli consultant of New York, Chabad house, International Civil Liberties Alliance, J.U.F., and Dr. Hagit Hadar of the Gilad Shalit Committee in America are just some of the people and organizations joining the campaign. [1][2][3][4]. The messages will go out on Tweeter on August 26 2009 Igor Berger (talk) 01:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Informed my mentor Franamax about the edit User:Franamax/Igorberger#Gilad_Shalit_Tweet4Shalit Igor Berger (talk) 03:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Did edit Gilad_Shalit Tweet4Shalit[5] Igor Berger (talk) 04:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Edit was reverted by User:Sean.hoyland[6] Igor Berger (talk) 04:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

(etc)Campaign To Free Gilad Shalit - Europe News article. Notes JIDF Tweet4Shalit activism campaign. Igor Berger (talk) 08:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I was told by my mentor User:Franamax I am not allowed to edit article Gilad Shalit "Gilad Shalit is off the table" Igor Berger (talk) 08:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Senator Bob Menendez in a speech to US congress calls Hamas terror organization Igor Berger (talk) 05:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Chabad Lubavitch anounces its participation in Tweee4Shalit campaign Igor Berger (talk) 02:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Israeli Consulate of New York join Tweet4Shalit activism campaign Israelpolitik Tweet4Shalit
Aish HaTorah joins AISH Tweet4Shalit] Igor Berger (talk) 10:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
GlobalPost Tweet4Shalit article Igor Berger (talk) 09:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
TweetYourPrayers Tweet4Shalit article Igor Berger (talk) 09:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Chabad Tweet4Shalit article Igor Berger (talk) 09:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
San Francisco Sentinel article GILAD SHALIT’S 23RD BIRTHDAY MARKED - ‘TWEET4SHALIT’ CAMPAIGN REACHES NO. 2 SPOT IN TWITTER Igor Berger (talk) 11:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) The Jewish Week article WEB EXCLUSIVE: Tweeting For Shalit Igor Berger (talk) 17:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Jpost noting the Twee4Shalit event Igor Berger (talk) 11:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Igor, we talked about this a bit, but maybe not enough. Yes, you are only posting on your talk page now, but this is still just plain advocacy for a specific cause. We give wide tolerance for talk page content here - for editors who wish to advance the emcyclopedia. You seem to be basically pursuing an "issue-du-jour" which is of interest to you personally. This is antithetical to our aim here, which is to "capture the sum of all human knowledge". We're not trying to ensure the success of any particular Twitter campaign. I recognize that this is very important to you personally, but it doesn't seem to be part of an encyclopedia. Please do step back, even your own talk page is not sacrosanct.
Can you find a typo to fix in some random article? There are tons of those. Anything but flirting around the edge of diaster. Me (and we) are looking for signs that you want to improve the encyclopedia in general, as opposed to just promoting your own personal views. What are you here for? Let's fix up that icebreaker! :) Franamax (talk) 03:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I just collecting all the relevant links for Tweet4Shalit edit. It is a Wikipedia worthy edit and eventually it will be done to the article. I am finishing a post on my blog, then I will work on Oden a bit more. Thanks for your concern. Again, I am not advocating anything here! Igor Berger (talk) 04:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

This user made an attempt to insert section about pro-Shalit activity in Twitter. Although it was quickly reverted for number of reasons, the information deserves a sentence or two in Gilad Shalit#Israeli society perceptions and activities related to Gilad Shalit. I suggest relevant info be put into the discussion page, I'd appreciate if those would be only Reliable sources or at least notable ones. Seeing that you have a mentor or somebody, I'll leave him a note too. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 12:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Only so that nobody mistakes what SA meant above, Igorberger made that edit almost two weeks ago and I warned him about it in the thread below. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't know what that supposed to mean, as I was infamiliar with this editor before. The section I mentioned above ('Israeli society perceptions and activities related to Shalit') was started only yesterday, despite the fact that some thoughts about it were conceived some time ago. I have the intention to insert there some info regarding pro-Shalit activities in Israel, as it is truly one of the most important and consolidating current issues for Israeli public and certainly mentioning these activities has an encyclopedic value. Actually, I don't need Igor to do this, I can handle it on my own, but since he was the first to mention Tweet4Shalit - he deserves credit. Again, if there are some restrictions that do not allow him to participate - we'll get the info on our own. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 07:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for the late reply, but I just come back from a short vacation. As far as the Tweet4Shalit activism campaign goes, I would like to add it to the Gilad Shalit. When I first did the edit, I was told by my mentor User:Franamax that it may seem like some advocacy for the event. It was not. It was a public event that has been written about in many online publications. I did not want to POV, so I waited till after the event to bring up the edit again. If it is alright with Franamax, I would like to add the information to the article's talk page and have other editors contribute to the edit to make it encyclopedic. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 10:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, yesterday JPost published an article on this matter and I couldn't help inserting it in the talk page. I still think you deserve the credit for spotting it first, but if your mentor will not show any sign of life in the next couple of days, I'll do it on my own. Thanks anyway for drawing my attention. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 10:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
The mentor who checks nervously every few hours to see if anything new has exploded, i.e. me? When Igor actually asks me something, such as on our mentorship page, via email, on my talk page - then I sure will show some sign of life. Igor knows the restrictions. SA, you are free to edit as you please, taking your own responsibility. It would be better if you didn't involve IB in those areas. He will get the credit eventually, if it all turns out to be a notable addition. I'm waiting 'til well after the event, to get a good picture of the feedback and ramifications. The newspapers I read can take a few weeks to deliver up solid analysis of world events. SA, yourself of course can make whatever edits you deem fit (within the obvious limitations) and if Igor places sources here, of course you can use them - provided you verify the source yourself and it's judged as reliable. Beyond that, it would be best if you didn't involve Igor too much in the actual cut-and-thrust of editing and discussion. I'm still waiting for a bit of time to pass after the event to discuss the problems I saw in his original edit on the matter. Patience... :) Franamax (talk) 11:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

this is not on[edit]

First Hummus and now Gilad Shalit? You've been allowed back only within many bounds, yet you seem to be heading straight to the most edgy, controversial topics you can think of. You haven't shown you can be trusted to edit articles like those. If you make another edit to any Palestine-Israel topic without getting an ok from your mentor first, or otherwise breach your mentoring agreements, you'll be blocked from editing indefinitely. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussion & advice becomes unhelpful
Igor - I appreciate that this is really none of my business, so feel free to ignore. Nevertheless, given your recent history, can you understand why some editors might feel concerned that just eight minutes after Gwen Gale's warning above, you signed up for WikiProject:Israel, and in so doing, effectively described yourself as "an active editor...actively involved in editing Israel-related articles" ? The Three Bears (talk) 18:04, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I have joined the project Israel, but I cannot make any edits unless they are approved by my mentor. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 21:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
I find it utterly astonishing that after having been given a second chance here, and having been given numerous warnings about getting involved with I-P articles, your immediate next move was to join WikiProject:Israel. You've been given excellent advice by your mentor for you to try and build up a solid and non-contentious editing history: I politely suggest you listen to it. Otherwise, other editors might begin to question what, exactly, you are hoping to accomplish during your time here, and what your true motives might be. The Three Bears (talk) 21:50, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
I am a bit surprised of all the scrutiny to my Israel related edits. I do not have a history editing Israeli articles in the past, besides a few minor edits. Does this have something to do with me being an Israeli and the political situation in the middle east? A bit strange! Igor Berger (talk) 21:59, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Please don't - as your mentor eloquently put it - try to pull on the mantle of persecution. Look at Gwen Gale's post at the top of this thread. Your reaction upon reading that was to immediately do the precise opposite of her advice. What were you possibly hoping to achieve ? Because it seems that the only likely course of action will be that Wikipedia gets added to the long list of other internet groups from which - judging from your website - you seem to be proud to have been expelled. If you want to stay: keep your head down and stick to non-contentious topics. The Three Bears (talk) 22:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your consern. It seems being Expelled is in my Blood Igor Berger (talk) 22:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
An alternative explanation is that it is the result of your behavior. The advantage of this proposition is that, unlike yours, it is falsifiable. You can test it's validity be simply changing your behavior to see whether or not you still get "expelled". Why not try it ? Sean.hoyland - talk 08:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Sean, I am open minded and come in Peace not War. The next Israeli related edit I will try to do with Franamax. But at the same time, you should consider the edits that I tried to do on articles Hummus and Gilad Shalit/ Annulling these edits is not friendly! How about trying to implement them into the articles? Igor Berger (talk) 09:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you understand that some editors find it difficult to believe that you are trying to edit peacefully, given both your on- and off-wiki actions ? For example, immediately after our exchange last night, you posted three Twitter messages directed to the "Jewish Internet Defense Forces": the first said "@jidf #Wikipedia really classy! I am being warned again & again not to Edit Israeli articles! I am an Israeli", the second: "@jidf What is next? Is #Wikipedia going to tell Israelis we cannot live in Israel?" and the third - which linked to the first two - said: "@ADL_National @jidf ADL are you listening 2 Jews cry for HELP? ". I'm not sure whether to think that this is what you seriously believe (in which case you are seriously misguided), or if you are deliberately trying to inflame what was an extremely minor exchange into a full-blown conflict by WP:MEAT (which would be the second time you've done this recently). The Three Bears (talk) 09:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I have a voice and opinion in public space! There seems to be a lot of concern about Wikipedia and Antisemitism. What is your opinion about Antisemitism on Wikipedia? Igor Berger (talk) 10:05, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
You haven't answered my question. Which was: can you understand why some editors find it difficult to believe that you are trying to edit peacefully, given both your on- and off-wiki actions, such as those I detailed above ? The Three Bears (talk) 10:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
It works both ways. Many Jewish and Christian people are not happy with what is happening on Wikipedia! Are you ingnoring their opinions? Igor Berger (talk) 10:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Your repeated refusal to answer the question only helps me to come to the conclusion that of the two scenarios I detailed above, the second is the more likely: that you are deliberately provoking disputes and trolling, rather than being innocently misguided. The Three Bears (talk) 10:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I am not deliberately provoking disputes and trolling! Igor Berger (talk) 10:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Can you understand why some editors find that difficult to believe, given your recent actions and behaviour ? The Three Bears (talk) 10:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I am sorry, I just do not know what I can tell you. I told you how I feel. Maybe there is something that could be done to make me feel differently? But I do understand what you are saying. I hope you understand what I am saying! Igor Berger (talk) 10:41, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) The Three Bears I would like to know why are you WP:wikistalking me? Every edit you have made from WP:SPA is with reference to me Special:Contributions/The_Three_Bears I request WP:CheckUser here WP:RFCU on The Three Bears. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 11:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussion about me on my mentor's page User_talk:Franamax#Igorberger 11:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm shocked that people would question why a person who gravitate towards his knowledge specialty. the only conclusion I can come to is that there is bias here and bigotry in the attacks on Igor Berger —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simonstudio (talkcontribs) 17:41, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

And is there a reason why you think putting forward a strawman argument followed by a conclusion that flies in the face of a mountain of evidence that you clearly haven't read would help Igor to change his behavior and stick to argeements he has made in order to avoid a re-block ? Sean.hoyland - talk 18:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

None of this (except Gwen's warning and maybe The Three Bears' first few posts) is particularly helpful to getting Igorberger back on track, so please, can it all end now? Simonstudio, your comment is noted, as well as the apparently matching comment at Igor's and your blogs. You should closely read WP:MEAT, because you are not helping Igor at all. Franamax (talk) 23:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Muammar_al-Gaddafi[edit]

Your addition looks great. Wizzy 19:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Wizzy. Thank you for your help. Igor Berger (talk) 19:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Reblocked[edit]

Hi Igor, Since you unblock was based on your having a suitable mentor and your mentor has resigned because they are unhappy with your compliance with the mentorship, I have reblocked you until such time as a suitable mentor can be made available to you. Best wishes Spartaz

willing to accept the mentor batton[edit]

Hi, I am willing to be a mentor for a while if you want. Take a few days off. If you come back with a few topics that you would like to work on, and I believe that they are non-controversial, I'll unblock provided you only work on the nominated topics. If we can work through a few non-controversial topics, we can tackle a controversial one if I can find a domain specialist to assist. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. I can edit social media and cities Igor Berger (talk)
Take a few days, and find a few topics which will really interest you, or where you have specialist knowledge. We will be working on one article for a few weeks. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Since I'm going to be away, I'll just record here that I have no objections to an unblock as soon as a new mentor if found. Spartaz Humbug! 10:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
ok. Igor Berger (talk) 11:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I am a Levi[edit]

I just found out my grandfather Fromchenko Leonid Isaacovich last name was Levin, but changed to Fromchenko to escape Russian Pogroms. My Grandfather's brother Eliyahu Fromenchenko founded Elite chocolate in Ramat Gan.[7] Igor Berger (talk) 00:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I spoke to my father's brother and he told me I am a Levi. I am from a Levi tribe. I am an Ashkenazi Jew Igor Berger (talk) 00:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

It looks like you are focusing on Strauss (company). It looks like a nice topic, with an interesting history. If you want to pick this as the first topic, I'll start reading up on it. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you John. Igor Berger (talk) 00:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Reading[edit]

Elite Chocalate[edit]

Elite chocolate is nothing more than chocolate from Laima chocolate factory[8] in Latvia Riga.[9] Please fix Strauss (company) to reflect the correct name and information! Igor Berger (talk) 01:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Ulmanis bought the chocolate factory Laima from the Moshevitz family. The Moshevitz family later founded the largest chocolate factory in the Middle East, the “Elite.” [10] Igor Berger (talk) 02:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Must be a name mix up Moshevitz and Fromchenko. Igor Berger (talk) 03:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Laima (confectioner) Igor Berger (talk) 06:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Theodor Riegert founded first confectionery plant in Riga in 1870.Th. Riegert was acquired by LAIMA (founded 1925) in 1938.[11] Igor Berger (talk) 06:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

approved articles to work on[edit]

Hi, my unblock proposal is that you agree to only work on articles that I approve here on your talk page.

The initial list of article is:

you can edit the talk pages, and chat with other people on their talk pages about these articles, but you cant join wikiprojects or unrelated discussions.

We can add other articles as your research progresses, and we will remove the other restrictions depending on how well you edit the approved articles.

Do you accept? --John Vandenberg (chat) 02:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes I do. If I am interested in working on another article, I would ask your approval first. Igor Berger (talk) 03:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Just to help Igor, under what circumstances will they be allowed to edit the actual article pages, as opposed to talk? And what would be the rule as far as reverts of other editor's work, i.e. assessing potential vandalism, POV edits, etc.? And will there be any requirement to make substantial productive edits on the articles in the list above before proceeding to "another article"? Best wishes to Igor and full trust in Jayvdb, but asking anyway! Franamax (talk) 03:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
With this initial list of articles, I dont expect a lot of problems, and Igor can edit any of them as he pleases. The list of articles will expand naturally around this topic, but new unrelated topics wont be approved until substantial productive edits have been made in this first topical area.
I will review all article edits, and if I see lots of incorrect or non-neutral changes, I may request that new information be presented on the talk page first for discussion, so that edit-wars dont occur. If an edit war does erupt, 0RR or 1RR may be applied for a specific duration or specific article as required to defuse the problem.
Thanks for asking Franamax; you are one step ahead of me, so I hope you stick around ;-) John Vandenberg (chat) 03:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
btw, I'll wait a little while for any follow up comments before I unblock. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I have unblocked you, and will check in periodically throughout the next 10 hours. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks John. I am ok. I will do some edits slowly. Igor Berger (talk) 05:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Moshevitz[edit]

The Moshevitz family, one of the founders of chocolate maker Elite, have notified Michael Strauss their support of his take-over attempt/ Igor Berger (talk) 08:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Temple in Jerusalem [edit]

As a Levite I must rebuild the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem and worship God there. Baruch Hashem, Amein Igor Berger (talk) 03:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Started a group on Facebook to rebuild The Jerusalem Temple[12] Igor Berger (talk) 01:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Wikipedia has a userbox available for you, Igorberger[edit]

{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia/userbox/UserWikiProjectWikipedia}}

Pandelver (talk) 15:35, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Membership of the Counter-Vandalism Unit[edit]

As you may know, the Counter-Vandalism unit is inactive. So for reviving the WikiProject, we will need to sort out the members. So if you are active, please put your username at the bottom of the list at Wikipedia talk:Counter-Vandalism Unit#Sort out the members.

You are receiving this message as a current member of the CVU.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Counter-Vandalism Unit at 00:27, 30 October 2011 (UTC).

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)[edit]

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

  • Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
  • Research: The most recent DR data
  • Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
  • Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
  • DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
  • Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
  • Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?
Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 19:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Input please[edit]

Hi, I noticed that you've had previous contact with user "Frederico1234" & first am wonder if you can recall whether he's a biased or reasonable editor? From your conversation with him on his user-talk page, It seems you were saying he's a pro-Palestinian editor in 2009?

I just had occasion to write the following to him in a RfC, regarding his (unfounded/not factually supported) critique of Dr. Mitchell Bard's JewishVirtualLibrary as factually "unreliable": "Frederico, do you have reasons why [JVL] would violate WP:RS, or is this simply "Wikipedia:I_just_don't_like_it"? Many websites cited in this article --and in WP overall-- are "propaganda" sites; that, alone, does not violate WP:RS (per section 4.7 of WP:RS)." (Note that JVL is being cited for the pro-Israel side in the writing-style of "The proponents hold that...XYZ, and their opposition holds that...ABC" -- we are NOT claiming it's a neutral source but WP:RS section 4.7 allows for this.)

Please also drop by if you have time & give your own opinion about this source's conformance to WP:RS: [here] ~JH Robbins — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.48.252.105 (talk) 23:32, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Personal infoboxes in relation to patriotism and nationalism[edit]

Hi Igorberger,

I saw your name on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Discrimination#Participants listing.

There is a discussion at Template talk:Infobox person#Citizenship suggesting a change of emphasis to a Citizenship entry from the Nationality entry.

The idea is to give more facilitation to Patriotism instead of Nationalism and also to allow more freedom of expression in regards to terminologies used.

Contributions are welcomed but may be worth checking last edit to check progress first :) Regards Gregkaye (talk) 20:53, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Computer Security user status[edit]

Hello Igorberger,

I would just like to inquire on your status on WikiProject Computer Security as the list of WikiProject Computer Security/Members is going to be improved to list active and inactive users.

This is update is being done according to a request for comments on the WikiProject Computer Security talk page. Be sure to state your status at the User status section in the WikiProject Computer Security talk page before the end of four weeks as this will state your status as inactive in the project if not done before then.

FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 19:19, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Asian 10,000 Challenge invite[edit]

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Asia/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge and Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like South East Asia, Japan/China or India etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. At some stage we hope to run some contests to benefit Asian content, a destubathon perhaps, aimed at reducing the stub count would be a good place to start, based on the current Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon which has produced near 200 articles in just three days. If you would like to see this happening for Asia, and see potential in this attracting more interest and editors for the country/countries you work on please sign up and being contributing to the challenge! This is a way we can target every country of Asia, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant! Thank you. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 04:51, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

RC Patrol-related Proposals in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey[edit]

Magic Wand Icon 229981 Color Flipped.svg

Greetings Recent Changes Patrollers!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about technical proposals related to Recent Changes Patrol in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

  1. Adjust number of entries and days at Last unpatrolled
  2. Editor-focused central editing dashboard
  3. "Hide trusted users" checkbox option on watchlists and related/recent changes (RC) pages
  4. Real-Time Recent Changes App for Android
  5. Shortcut for patrollers to last changes list

Further, there are more than 20 proposals related to Watchlists in general that you may be interested in reviewing. (and over 260 proposals in all, across many aspects of wikis)

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Note: You received this message because you have transcluded {{User wikipedia/RC Patrol}} (user box) on your user page. Since this message is "one-time-only" there is no opt out for future mailings.

Best regards, SteviethemanDelivered: 01:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Fixuture edit in Israel[edit]

Hello. I wanted to let you know that Fixuture reinstated an extremely cherry-picking POV paragraph that was rejected in February, despite there was no consensus for it, not then, not recently.--Tribal Defender (talk) 03:40, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

i added my opinion on Israel talk page Talk:Israel#Observers claimed Israel or According to observers thanks, Igor Berger (talk) 07:43, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Please use the proper talk page to discuss an article[edit]

If you want to discuss The Exodus article, discuss it at Talk:The Exodus. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 16:49, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I == I can't find any evidence your mentorship agreement, through which you escaped a ban, is rescinded ==

I'm referring to this and have asked User:John Vandenberg to comment. Meanwhile it appears to me that you are restricted to a small set of articles not including the ones you are editing. You don't know me but you can click on my userpage for more information. At the moment I'm assuming it hasn't been voided by time and is still in force. Doug Weller talk 17:25, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

The agreement dates to 2009 and User:Igorberger was mostly inactive for several years. I checked his edit history, and he only returned to Wiki-editing on 19 April, 2017. Most of his edits so far are comments on talk pages and discussions with User:Malik Shabazz. I am a bit puzzled that he does not seem to remember how to use Hyperlinks, but I guess he is a bit rusty. Dimadick (talk) 18:05, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

i have not been involved in any edit warring. it has been 8 years since my mentorship agreement Igor Berger (talk) 18:50, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
please advice me on my status. i am not aware that the mentorship was not closed. i did some edits under the mentorship and then stopped editing for 8 years, with a few minor edits. i was not aware that i was violating any Wkipedia rules. thanks, Igor Berger (talk) 19:02, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
The mentorship was agreed as a condition of your being unblocked after your community ban. You were supposed to edit only certain articles and not join wikiprojects. You've ignored all that and not spoken to the Admin who arranged the agreement. If that agreement had not been made you would still be blocked and have to make an appeal. Instead you edited for 6 days and vanished. We can see what John Vanderberg has to say,
At Talk:Exodus#Article The Exodus is not Religion, but challenge to the Bible story! you told an editor "wiser unless you going to work with me to improve the edit i will assume POV pushing and add a POV template and seek third opinion. please do not remove the POV template." That shows lack of good faith (see WP:AGF}. Doug Weller talk 19:13, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Doug Weller talk 19:13, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

why is it lack of good faith, if the editor reverted my edit without any message on the article talk page? all i said i will put a POV template because he was not interested in having a productive discussion with me but just reverted my edit, "not assuming good faith" Igor Berger (talk) 19:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
The unblock was granted in 2009 per this diff. That agreement is still visible higher up on this talk page. Igorberger's work since he resumed editing doesn't inspire confidence. This section header is hard to understand and suggests someone who lacks ability in English. EdJohnston (talk) 21:04, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
thanks for a vote of confidence. i guess my English is not good, being that i graduated from NYU in NYC and spent 20 years in US. I have as well written many stories and posts on Face Book. thanks for everything Igor Berger (talk) 21:32, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Igorberger, not wanting to pile on but I do want to note that my initial thought, quite independent of all the history mentioned above, when I saw this as your first reply in a thread about content was that you could use a mentor. VQuakr (talk) 02:34, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
thanks nothing bad about you. this is why i went around to get advice on edits and did not engage in edit wars or reverting other editors. i tried to get a consensus on edits to improve articles not to write my POV Igor Berger (talk) 04:19, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
A question. While it is extremely important that we remember the Holocaust, what do you mean by a one state" solution at User:Igorberger/Remember the Jewish Holocaust? And the link VQakr gave to Talk:Haavara Agreement: Difference between revisions and the linki gave to the Exodus talk page are worrying. You are being immediately confrontational which is not a good sign and doesn't suggest that you've changed your behavior. Doug Weller talk 05:00, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
as the Bible prescribes us, there is only One Israel. Jews are One. this is our Prophesy. to deny a Jew Zionism that is rooted in the Jewish Bible the Torah is Antisemitism and Sacrilegious. I, as a Jew, cannot go against G-d - that is blasphemy for me. while I understand that the Wikipidea project is secular, we should present both points of view to its readers and not discriminate against religion. that was my intention with the Exodus disambiguation page. as a Wikipedia editor I was just trying to be NPOV. you can see me asking for advice on Wkipedia project Judaism Book of Exodus vs Exodus Igor Berger (talk) 05:49, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
You haven;'t answered my question. What do you mean by saying you want a one state, not a two state solution. Doug Weller talk 08:00, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Igor, despite the passage of time I don't see an improvement in your editing and you are still subject to restrictions to editing. You are not complying with that restriction. The IP area does not need furthjer distructive editing and until we can be confident that you have improved you should not make any edits related to it. In face, i suggest you cease editing altogether until we work out what we are going to do. Spartaz Humbug! 05:46, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I am not editing anything. I was just trying to bring awareness to systematic bias to some articles. i was trying to get consensus to make NPOV revisions to eliminate this bias. but it seems to be that i am remembered as a bad editor, so i have failed in my attempt. please go back to what you guys have been doing. i see the cancer that has spread on wikipedia just cannot be cured. i do enjoy reading wikipedia immensely, but unless you know what you are looking for it is confusing for a novel person. i am sorry for making you all uncomfortable.i will not disturb you anymore or waste my time trying to achieve something that is unachievable. thanks for caring and all your help Igor Berger (talk) 06:04, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
That makes things a bit easier. The original ban was a community ban, and the decision to unblock was also a community decision. Thus any change should go back to the community. I am therefore reinstating your block. If you wish to appeal please ping me or another editor and ask us to copy your appeal to WP:ANI. You can also use the {{help}} template. Pinging the admins who have posted here and the admin who unblocked.@EdJohnston, Spartaz, and John Vandenberg:. If one of you wishes to unblock go ahead, you don't need to consult me. Doug Weller talk 08:00, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Doug Weller can you please delete my Wikipedia account, user page and my user pages that i have created under the user. i find the account useless and will not be coming back to Wikipedia under this account or any other account. thanks Igor Berger (talk) 13:01, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
It's not possible to delete an account but I'll delete what I can. Doug Weller talk 13:03, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
thanks Igor Berger (talk) 13:17, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Template:Db-Igorberger

Proposed deletion of File:Igorberger.jpg[edit]

Notice

The file File:Igorberger.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 21 July 2019 (UTC)