User talk:Igorberger/04-February-2008-04-March-2008

Concerns about your edit style

Igor, I am troubled by the way in which you edit here. I suggest that you exhibit several of the behaviours which are considered tendentious editing. There is a list of Characteristics of problem editors. Of course you do not exhibit all of these, but enough of them seem to describe your edit style, and I thought I should say something. I realise this list is designed to talk about articles in the main articlespace, but I think it applies to your edits in the User and Project spaces as well.

For instance, the third characteristic from the bottom is that you find yourself repeating the same argument over and over again, without persuading people. You added unsubstantiated claims about trolling at Wikipedia to the article Troll (internet). I reverted, and I left a friendly note on your talk page. Your reply made it clear that you had not read my objection, as you merely repeated your desire to put your thoughts into that page. You then indicated that you would see what the consensus was by taking the discussion to the article's talk page. Once there, the best support you got on that page was moral support from Durova (talk · contribs) who indicated that the objection to your contribution was that it belonged in the project namespace, not the article namespace. I amplified that my objection to your contribution did not specifically improve a general article about internet trolling and that there was a clear See Also link at the very top of the existing article to point people to a Wikipedia essay on trolling. Rather than make any attempt to counter the claim that your addition represented original research, you offered the same argument: i.e., Trolling is a problem at Wikipedia; therefore my description of it belongs in this article. I cautioned you that your edit might cause a problem with undue weight which is a slippery slope to editing with a point of view. Rather than answer any of the issues of original research, incorrect namespace, undue weight or neutral point of view, you responded with a non-sequitur about notability. After no consensus at all was reached, you being the only one supporting the addition, you indicated you would restore the text to the article anyway. Since it was clear to me that you were going to do what you wanted irrespective of any discussion about it, I suggested you have it spell-checked and then make the edit anyway. So three minutes later, you did put the text in, still with misspellings, an unpiped WP shortcut reference, and a sentence fragment to start the entire section, as you've treated the section header as the beginning of the first sentence. In just two hours, the section was removed by another editor, with an edit summary which briefly touched on the original research and namespace issues. Four days later, still with nothing new to further your case, you again restored your text, with an edit summary indicating that deleting this section should be discussed on the talk page. This is in spite of your having ignored all of what has transpired on the talk page, both specific to this discussion and earlier repeated issues the page has had with additions of original research. Eleven hours later, another editor came along and deleted your contribution, again with a clear edit summary as to the problem with it. He even followed your instructions and commented on the article's talk page adding the issue of verifiability, one of the pillars of Wikipedia. What you have done here is also listed in the Characteristics of problem editors: (fifth from bottom) You challenge the reversion of your edits, demanding that others justify it.

The next characteristic I think you possess has to do with the essay you refer to as your masterpiece. Your essay seems to be an example of another of the traits of problem editors (sixth from bottom): You find yourself accusing other editors of censorship, et al. The essay seems to state that there is a problem with some edits and editors--they are using Wikipedia as social engineering, which I think means that they are exploiting people's good nature to fool them and make their arguments in underhanded ways. You suggest ways in which one might do that, such as using sockpuppet accounts to astroturf (fake support for a viewpoint from the same source as the original) and refactoring of talk pages in order to make their proposals appear to have greater levels of support than they have. This may well be a serious problem, but the problem with your essay is that it fails to assume good faith.

I am very confused by the intent of your essay. It claims to be humour, and you explain that your essay is self -explanatory even though I have expressed my confusion. What puzzles me further is how you state that your essay addresses a serious problem and should be used to help prevent edit waring, yet you repeatedly assert that it is intended as humour. Oddly, you specifically object to its being called a joke by another editor at my talk page.

I suspect your intentions are made clear when you refer people to the Words of Wisdom, a group of essays meant to be policy while for various reasons did not succeed. In other words, this was never intended to be humour, but you treated it as such, because it was your view of the only way to get it accepted.

Concerning your overall contributions, it surprises me that, as a newer user, you have so many contributions to places such as WP:ANI. You have added inappropriate comments and accusations, offered frivolous solutions, even though you really did not know what was going on in the case. You inhave been incivil in comments to other editors. Back to the list of Characteristics of problem editors (fourth from top), you asked people to assume good faith regarding your actions, when your own accusation was in bad faith. I see that you participate frequently in discussions where you have little knowledge, if any, of the involved parties, just to make inappropriate comments.

After you created the WP shortcut to your essay, your continued comments to ANI were no less inappropriate, but now included links to your essay and cite it as a reason for a block and ban, even though your essay is just that, an essay.

Another concern I have with your edits is the last item in the list of Characteristics of problem editors. You do not carefully thread your posts on talk pages. Of all of your bad habits, this trivial-appearing one is to me still serious. As someone who is quick to rail on the evils of refactoring talk pages and social engineering, you are at a minimum careless with your indent level. When you commented here, you indented each of your following comments, which might lead a reader to think that someone else, such as The undertow (talk · contribs) said the statement in the middle, when in fact you were replying to your own comment. Even when it is unlikely anyone could be confused as to who said what, it is inappropriate to indent a comment one more level right below your own text.

Lastly, you have done some things which are somewhere between disingenuous and dishonest. You awarded two barnstars to editors thanking them for being your inspiration for your essay, crediting your essay inside the barnstar. That's almost like giving a barnstar to yourself. Truly one of the most incredible statements you have made was your claim that you don't try to promote your own contributions when you have left links to your essay all over the project.

I hope that you will take the time to read this. I think I have been fair but firm, citing recent diffs all from the last month. You have claimed that admins support your actions, but I think you are listening just to what you want to hear. I hope you will consider my observations seriously. MKoltnow 00:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for evaluating me. Igor Berger (talk) 01:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Totalitarianism

The term "totalitarianism" is hotly contested by political scientists. It is a serious violation of NPOV and NOR for Wikipedia users to be randomly and arbitrarily inserting this tag in pages on specific regimes and individuals. The tag can go in articles that directly relate to the subject, such as totalitarianism and post-totalitarianism, books on the subject, and theorists who contributed to the concept, such as Hannah Hannah Arendt. I am only removing the tag from where it does not belong. Maglev Power (talk) 01:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you better clarify this to people who understand the subect, which I do not. There is a consern to you actions raised at AN Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Totalitarianism. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 01:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• User blocked for 24 hours after failing to listen to the consensus of other editors and continued disrupting Wikipedia. result Igor Berger (talk) 02:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Message left here

I am concerned about the above edit where you appear to be using Durova's words in a way that she did not intend and apparently without permission. Could you please address this situation as soon as possible? Thank you Igor. Best wishes --VS ^talk 11:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Steve thank you for mentoring me. Igor Berger (talk) 11:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Well I am probably not mentoring you Igor in the strict sense - but I certainly am trying to be supportive and to watch you in a positive way with the intention of having you turn your editing style around whilst there is still time. As you know I have commented positively about this possibility elsewhere. So now please go and strike out the link you made (as detailed above) as asked by Durova. Best wishes --VS ^talk 11:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Al done. Striked out. Igor Berger (talk) 11:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits

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. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also 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) 09:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Igor Berger (talk) 09:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Editing "advise"

Here is what you said: “I advice you to listen to what User:WLU says and learn about editing Wikipedia.” First of all the word you are trying to use is advise, which is a verb, not advice which is a noun and when used as a noun in your sentence, it makes you sound illiterate in the english language and incapable of editing in Wikipedia. My "advise" to you would be keep your “advise” literate but most importantly keep it to to yourself because I am not interested in your opinions just the facts. -- Jeffrey Pierce Henderson (talk) 08:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

User:WLU is a sesoned editor and that is a fact. Igor Berger (talk) 08:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

User:WLU is a hack and his edits are a sham. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffrey Pierce Henderson (talk • contribs) 09:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Why would you say that, and what has he done to you to make you feel that way? Igor Berger (talk) 09:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Igor, thanks for coming to my defense : ) There is a detailed discussion of my rationale on JPH's talk page (here), and congratulations keeping your cool. WLU (talk) 00:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

dear Igor

If you are so fearful of "giving Jewish people a bad name" by speaking up against vile and clear antisemitism, that's entirely your prerogative, but please do not project your fears onto me nor try to discredit a valid case simply because it makes you fearful. If you are that frightened, simply don't look, or provide a valid rebuttal (not an insulting one such as I am "Jewish people a bad name". Have a nice day! Boodlesthecat (talk) 20:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Boodlesthecat you are just antagonazing people and being disruptive. Let it rest. Igor Berger (talk) 21:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

No. Antisemitism is wrong. Period. Boodlesthecat (talk) 22:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course it is wrong, but do not invite it and do not scream every time someone makes an ethnic reference. If you let it go from time to time and when someone realy directs it at you, you have a right to protest. If you keep complaining about it, people will lose respect for you as an editor. If someone wants to call you a Zionist in a heat of a warring editing do you need to take it to your heart? Do you even know what a Zionist is? Just take it easy and enjoy editing Wikipedia. Regards, Igor Berger (talk) 22:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Surely you can tell the difference between being called a Zionist (wich noone has called me" and being called "a whiny neurotic Jew?" I'm less concerned with losing respect as a Wikipedia editor than I am with losing respect as a human being, which is what happens to you when you ignore injustices--whether large or whether its petty bigots on Wikipedia--simply because you are too timid. If you sleep comfortably with that attitude, Kol Hakavod to you! Boodlesthecat (talk) 23:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Good luck to you, you will need it. Igor Berger (talk) 23:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Your final warning to User: Victor64

You made a final warning to User: Victor64 earlier today. At the time of your warning, the new user in question had made two constructive edits (fixing vandalism by others), and only one destructive edit. Issuing a final warning under this circumstances is completely outside any of the guidelines for dealing with vandalism. In fact, it fits under the description of What vandalism is not - tests by experimenting users. The guidelines note that "Rather than be warned for vandalism, these users should be warmly greeted, and given a reference to the sandbox (e.g., using the test template message) where they can continue to make test edits without being unintentionally disruptive.".

Can you please follow guidelines in the future when dealing with new users, and place an apology to the user on his talk page. Thanks, Nfitz (talk) 22:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The user was a clear vandal, blanking pages and writing abusive language. The user since been blocked indef. Igor Berger (talk) 22:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Under the guidelines, the user was not a vandal. It fits the definition of "What vandalim is not". A user who has never seen Wikipedia before experimenting, is not a vandal. Abusive language? Give me a break. Nfitz (talk) 23:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

First of all I did not even warn the user but I do support what my fellow editors did. If you have an issue with indef block and how the process was handled please bring it to WP:ANI. Regards, Igor Berger (talk) 23:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Blanking an article page and substituting, this is retarded is vandalism. This was done twice to two different articles. The second time was done after being warned not to do it. Igor Berger (talk) 23:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the second blanking may be construed as vandalism - however I think that the whole 6-minute incident would have been better dealt with as experimentation - especially as the User was also making constructive edits. I disagree that the other editors acted correctly. I believe they did not consider Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. I also believe that reporting a new user, who has made 2 constructive edits, and 2 destructive edits, as a "vandalism-only account", and having them indefinitely blocked is a misrepresentation of what happened, and should not have happened. Thanks for pointing out the correct place to file a complaint. Nfitz (talk) 23:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not saying that the user is a vandal. We all make mistakes and they can be corrected by making request to the community. But to go around calling admins abusive is not productive to Wikipedia. The original editor who made the final warning first might have been too harsh, but I as a vandal patrolman would have made a middle type warning. But still after the warning the user continued to be abusive intentianally or by experiment. That was seen as vandalism and caused a block to protect Wikipedia not to administar punishment. Also it is good that you are teaching young people about Wikipedia. Please keep it up. And if problems arise just explain your situation to an admin to clear up the matter. Igor Berger (talk) 23:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Good advice ... though in my eyes, an experienced user trumping up a complaint, and violating Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers is more serious than a new user testing out on a couple of pages. However, I should also assume good faith! Nfitz (talk) 23:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Equazcion may have a tendency to jump the gun when on vandal patrol, but WP:AGF. No harm done. Igor Berger (talk) 23:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there was any harm done by User:Victor64 either, as the edits were clearly going to be caught almost instantaneously, and reverted ... but his account is forever marked with an indefinite block, while User:Equazcion's isn't. Hmm, which makes me think that he shouldn't be asking for the block to be lifted, given it shouldn't have been issued in the first place. Nfitz (talk) 00:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Being blocked is not the end of the world but part of the process. I have been blocked before and I felt bad, because I did not feel I deserved it. But life goes on and we move on. Just request a block to be lifted and help the young user to learn how to edit Wikipedia. Our pages are seen by the whole world and we do have to be careful what we write on them. Igor Berger (talk) 00:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

We also have to preserve the integrity of the process on Wikipedia. You can't have people willy-nilly ignoring guidelines, and shooting people, and asking questions later. Those who are operating outside of the process must also be dealt with. Or else, I have to explain to a child that he can't break the rules, but others are allowed to break them. Nfitz (talk) 01:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Being a Wikipedian is not an easy thing to do. We have to explain to both sides. Even when we know we are right explaining it to others can be a hard task and may take time. Igor Berger (talk) 01:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Social engineering Internet

Wikipedia:Social engineering Internet, a page you created, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Social engineering Internet and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Social engineering Internet during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Equazcion •✗/C • 20:54, 29 Feb 2008 (UTC) 20:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

You are requested to refrain from answering personal questions on my talk page

Igor - Please allow me the opportunity of answering questions on my talk page in my own words - I do not appreciate this type of edit except where senior editors or other admins and I have an agreement of such support. In the future, perhaps, when you gain a good deal more experience on wikipedia and I have come to an opinion that I can trust you to comment on my behalf I will request you to assist in my absence. --VS ^talk 22:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Steve did not mean to step on you. I was just trying to be helpful, some eidotrs like it other don't. Will keep in mind that you do not and will let you answer your own questions on your talk page. Igor Berger (talk) 22:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment

I just want to reiterate my comment from the MfD. I really appreciate your willingness to help other users. Wikipedia needs helpful editors like you. It seems to me like you really want to help, but that you're not sure where to start. As if to drive the point home, on your user page you've requested to be adopted and also advertise your willingness to adopt a user. Those two requests are pretty much contradictory -- you should only be adopting new users if you have enough experience that you don't need to be adopted yourself. Your zest for helping others can eventually be a great asset to Wikipedia, but you should probably concentrate on learning first. Being that you're such a helpful person, I'm sure you can understand the value in making sure your advice will be accurate. If you ever need any assistance please don't hesitate to ask at my talk page. And before offering advice to others please ask yourself whether or not you really possess the knowledge required to answer the question asked of you. When you're not sure, you can always ask me or direct users to me, or to any of the other experienced editors whom you've interacted with. With time I'm sure you'll develop a great understanding of Wikipedia that will allow the community to take full advantage of your helpfulness. :) Equazcion •✗/C • 22:50, 29 Feb 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. As I help others I learn as well. Of course I have to be careful and prudent with the advice I offer to others. It is a fine line to walk to keep Wikipedia NPOV. But working together as a community we can help make Wikipedia a better place for our community and people who come to Wikipedia to reference and learn. So we in a sence are adopting each other as one brother to another brother. Igor Berger (talk) 22:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Ocha

Hello, Igorberger. I have not caught your comment at ANI, "Please have some Ocha". I'm upset because Endroit keeps lying. But if my understanding is right, your comment sounds like "you need to calm down." I don't know what ocha is but the link redirect to tea. I really need to drink a cup of tea.--Appletrees (talk) 05:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Ocha is tea in Japanese. I think I spelled it right unless you spell it differently than you pronounce it. Igor Berger (talk) 05:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe this is better お茶 Igor Berger (talk) 05:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, in both Japan and Korean, tea is called as "cha". I know お茶づけ(Ochazuke) and Ocha indicates Japanese "green tea". I prefer drinking black tea rather than green tea. So my understanding seems correct.--Appletrees (talk) 05:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

..:) Are you from Korea or Japan? I have been living 17 years in Japan now. Igor Berger (talk) 05:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what this emoticon means ..:) (world is filled with new information) I has not lived in Japan except brief traveling. You must be fluent in Japanese.--Appletrees (talk) 05:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Emoticon means a smile. I speak it fluently but cannot write or read it. I grew up in the States so kind of stuck between continents. Oh, and was born in Russia, which makes me totally confused. Take a little time to relax and do not be so intense. Even if you are right it is okay to be wrong. Wikipedia is timeless and we all have many years to make or edits even if they do not seem to work when we want them to. Igor Berger (talk) 05:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

A post by you

Re this post at AN/I: I would like to suggest that you consider striking out the last two sentences, which in my opinion go beyond discussion of behaviour and seem to be talking about the person himself. I would appreciate it if you would do so. --Coppertwig (talk) 18:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you give me the reasoning of why I should strike it out? The editor violated WP:NPA without any justification but to experiment, by self admission. The language that he used to attack the female editor is so bad that I do not even want to repeat it here. And why? He never had contact with her before, by self admission. This is grounds for indef block not for oh be nice and play by the rules. It is vandalism and nothing less by the personal attacker. Igor Berger (talk) 18:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The editor who got this abuse never interacted with the abusive editor, by the admision of the abusive editor. Do we as a community condone such behavior? Oh I do not like your editor name and I will spew all kind of volgar insult on your talk page??? Is that okay??? Igor Berger (talk) 18:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

This (Egypt) rediret to Girga

User:Iustinus I am sorry, before I mark the redirect for AfD, can you tell me why it should be kept? Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 03:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Please leave me a reply on my talk page. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 03:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

usernamess and blocks

Hi - the point I was making on ani is that the username policy, and the application of that policy, sometimes seems to be much more severe than other blocks. A new user with a marginal name is greeted with a warning message and a policy page discussion about why their name is or isn't suitable, often with bad faith comments ("anyone wanting to contribute wouldn't chose that name" etc). Often username policy is used to block people for behaviour that hasn't yet happened. Kind Regards. Dan Beale-Cocks 10:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I undesrstood your point and no problem. It is the User:Tom.mevlie behavior that is in question. Igor Berger (talk) 10:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

CareFlash deletion review request

Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_March_2#CareFlash Igor Berger (talk) 10:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Igor for restoring this to my sandbox. I appreciate it and will definately be more careful in what I type and with external links. I am new to wikipedia and honestly don't know what I'm doing yet. I apoligize. How do I contact an admin when I feel the page is ready to be public again? Thanks for all your help! Regards, Klostermankl —Preceding unsigned comment added by Klostermankl (talk • contribs) 21:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Now problem. That is why I came to help you in the first place. I know you are a new editor and do not know about Wikipedia rules and policies so I figured I can give you a hand, and Wikipedia can use all users who are interested to contribute positively to the project. Once you feel that you got your article up to par ask one of the admins that was involved in the deletion review process to have a look and see what they say. The admin who closed the deletion review would probably be your best bet being that he is helpful. Oh do not forget to sign your talk by typing four tildas ~~~~ Igor Berger (talk) 21:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again. The more I learn, the more I enjoy this. Do I need to get the page wikified, unorphaned and more notability before I can take it back to an admin? How do I do this? (When I tried to link it to other articles before, that's what got me in trouble). Thanks, Klostermankl (talk) 23:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

When you link to your article from other articles you make your article prominent and open to scrutiny which is nothing wrong with it, because why do you create an article in the first place unless it has relevence to other articles on Wikipeida. Try to get some more notable reference to your article that will help with Wikipedia:Verify issue. Read more articles about social media networks and networking that will teach you more about the vertical. Talk to editors at other social networking articles and see if you can add a link to your Website in external links or in references. Write a few articles about social media networking in mediacal area on your Website and reference to them from social media networking articles. Get input from other editors in the field do not just drop a link that is bad netiquette. Talk to User:Jehochman he is our resident SEO guru. Ask his advice on doing this and see what he says. Igor Berger (talk) 23:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Igor! I can't tell you how much help you've been! I REALLY appreciate it. You're my favorite :). Klostermankl (talk) 02:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Interested in Andy Beard and other notable SEOs

I was reviewing your discussion for the search engine optimization article regarding Andy Beard, I would like to work together on building an article page for Andy and any other notable SEO consultants that may apply.

SDSandecki (talk) 22:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Great would love to have you on board. You sure look like you have the skills and knowledge of the topic. Just dig into my sandboxs and makes consructive edits as you see fit. If we do not agree on something we can always change it later with a simple compromise. Start with Andy User:Igorberger/Andy_Beard. I will add the other sandbox pages here in a short time. The topic and articles have been approved by User:Jehochman so we have the green light of SEO knowladgable admin. We just have to make the article notable and NPOV. Regards, Igor Berger (talk) 22:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is a link to other articles User_talk:Igorberger/21-november-2007-01-january-2008#SEO_Consultants Igor Berger (talk) 22:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

ANI thread

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. --VS ^talk 00:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for raising your concerns Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Serious_Conflict_of_Interest_-_User:Igorberger If determined by consensus inappropriate, I will remove references to Wikipedia from my Websites. Igor Berger (talk) 00:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you - could you post this agreement to the ANI thread please?--VS ^talk 00:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Igor, you can say that you're a volunteer editor here, but please remove claims or suggestions that you have some kind of official relationship with the Foundation or with Wikipedia that you clearly do not. The way your pages are currently written implies you have a business relationship with Wikipedia which is obviously not true. Please fix this as soon as possible or we shall have to pass this on to the office. So if you are here in good faith, please fix this voluntarily and of your own accord. Thanks, Sarah 10:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Thanks Sarah, I will change it to say that I am a volunteer editor. I stated so in ANI already, even before I saw your message here. I never meant to imply that I work at WP. Thank you for your consern, Igor Berger (talk) 10:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for changing it so quickly Igor. Much appreciated. Sarah 10:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem..:) I am a software engineer and I write software. Igor Berger (talk) 11:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• I also appreciate this change Igor and now no harm done there (as Longhair says) however could you please also adjust this other site of yours as it still says PHSDL has been authenticated per Wikipedia.org as notable ...--VS ^talk 12:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Okay give me a little time to think how to do it aesthetically. Igor Berger (talk) 12:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks Igor - let me know if you need help. Would also appreciate you indicating here so that we can all close this thread off. Best wishes.--VS ^talk 12:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Sorry Steve I may need a few days, I am a bit tired now to think constructively, but will do the fix as soon as I can. Regards, Igor Berger (talk) 12:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
    • All done, please check. Igor Berger (talk) 23:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[outdented for reability] Igor as per your request I have checked and given my view - following on from another editor's concern over your Conflict of Interest situation. I appreciate this may open up a wound with you - but hopefully you will see that I have the interest of wikipedia at heart. I would much rather move on to something else but I am unable to support your changes to your business sites and I have detailed my answer to you at the ANI thread. I also want to get the most open answer I can because I could be wrong and if so then that will be okay by me - so I have asked all other editors so far contributing to come back and give their further opinions.--VS ^talk 10:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I have replied to you on ANI. I hope I have addrressed your consers, but if you need to know more just please ask. Igor Berger (talk) 11:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

ANI thread changed by User:Jehochman to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Igorberger to remove conclusory heading. Igor Berger (talk) 12:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Tom.mevlie abuse incident ANI thread

resolved here Igor Berger (talk) 05:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC) not quiet, have more Igor Berger (talk) 06:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC) user talk page auto block Igor Berger (talk) 07:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Redacted comment

Hi Igor,

I redacted a comment from my talk page. Generally it's not polite or a good thing to have a comment hanging about that implies another editor is either of those things : ) 12:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

NP..:) Igor Berger (talk) 12:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

This

I've been out of town, so I just got your comments on my talk page. I have posted an explanation on the RfD page. --Iustinus (talk) 18:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Request to remove advertising

Igor - so as to follow process and as a part of the consensus of concern regarding your advertising the name of the Wikipedia organisation and the conflict of interest of your subsequent edits Would you please be kind enough to remove all references to the Wikipedia foundation from the websites that have been identified at this ANI? --VS ^talk 20:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Please read my reply in ANI. Igor Berger (talk) 20:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you - you have made your intention to not act appropriately and in good faith clear to me and many others. Wikipedia does not need editors who ride on the coat-tails of its success in the way that you are doing and I will file my report for their intention. Good luck - please do not return to my talk page with any more of your time wasting and evasiveness.--VS ^talk 21:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)