Ok. I think it is too much information. Maybe the qigong aqspects of goju may be explained while describing the medicinal aspects of sanchin kata. In any case, the article needs more basic information by now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alfredo elejalde (talk • contribs) 05:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominated Category:WikiCommonSense (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. ZimZalaBim talk 22:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While based on their editing history Rachel63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) may be a sock of Bsharvy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) this is not confirmed by checkuser, although they do edit from the same country. Squatt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), on the other hand is the same editor as Bsharvy as confirmed by checkuser. Fred Talk 23:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See Talk:Israel#BBS News link. -- tariqabjotu 12:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Autoconfirmed Proposal has been made already and, although I think it would be an excellent idea, it was sadly rejected by the community. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have decided to write, in my own good time, an article about certain "recent experiences" related to Wikipedia.
I shall assume that your true name is Igor Berger.
In the above-referenced article, I shall quote, in whole or in part, your post to the "User talk" page of Tim Vickers, under the heading "evolution," dated "2 April 2008."
In the interest of fairness, and in accordance with journalistic ethics, I shall provide you with a copy of this article, prior to publication, for the purpose of feedback. I shall provide this copy through any channel that you wish (e-mail; surface post); however, I shall not provide this copy via Wikipedia "User talk." Should you choose to decline this invitation, then I shall simply report this as fact: e.g. "Igor Berger declined the author's invitation to comment." However, I shall consider the fact of your "non-response" to this invitation as subject for "fair comment" in the article.
Leroy W. Demery, Jr.
Ldemery (talk) 19:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The original CSD nom wasn't mine, but I agree that the article has potential.--Deadly∀ssassin(talk) 06:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand you. You complain about large edits made without dicussion or consensus, then you participate in an edit war over a large edit made without discussion or consensus. The article has focussed on anti-Americanism as a form of prejudice for as far back as I can research. It stated its topic was prejudice well over a year ago, as I pointed out to you on the Talk page. The longstanding consensus has been that it is primarily about a kind of bias against American policies/culture/people. So why are you suddenly insisting, with very little discussion, that the paragraph be hacked in the name of consensus? Life.temp (talk) 03:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My topic is your behavior, so it seems better not to clutter the Talk page of the article. You did not revert "per discussion" because the discussion has not reached an agreement yet. Please wait for (or contribute to) consensus. Life.temp (talk) 00:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just doing my part And thanks for the acknowledgment. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rolling Stone is probably not a good source for evaluating US presidencies.JackWilliams (talk) 23:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I'm pretty sure you can't use fair use images on your userpage —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.12.159 (talk) 01:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are editors here who want to remove your reference to that poll. This is to give you a chance to respond. --SMP0328. (talk) 01:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Feel free to bring this up on the article's talk page. --McGeddon (talk) 12:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Umaku narimashta? Moshi shitsuya areba, boku ni kite kudasai. Oshiyete ageru. Mata Ne! Igor Berger (talk) 01:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tuvok[T@lk/Improve] 17:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point. I didn't understand at first, but...he's looking for a block. Cheers, Lindsay 22:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
its been on the talk page all day, buddy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.36.147.198 (talk) 18:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC) Not EVERYTHING has to go through consensus discussion. That info is in violation of policy, as it is just original research - an opinion as to why something exists. 128.36.147.198 (talk) 18:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SHOW ME where I put it up for CSD? You CAN'T! I did a prod and then an AFD. So stop saying otherwise. I just did what you said to do (before you erased the messages from your talk page.) Angrysusan (talk) 18:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see you and Angrysusan going back and forth on the AfD tag placed on this article, and I'd suggest leaving the AfD tag there. The best place to discuss this would be on the AfD discussion that is now ongoing which is linked in the actual AfD tag. Please do not remove this tag, as this is not a vandal edit. Wildthing61476 (talk) 18:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. You shouldn't be asking for a block. It's not sockpuppetry for an IP to register an account in order to start an AfD. And not that it matters, but they never tried to CSD the article. They tried to Prod it before finally taking it to AfD. Will you please just let the issue drop now? Maybe focus on the AfD instead of Angrysusan. --Onorem♠Dil 19:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you disagree with Chomsky as a WP:V WP:RS, then YOU challenge the inclusion of the material in article, don't present a hatchet job WP:SYN within the article to make your point. If other WP:RS have different views OF THE TOPIC than Chomsky does (not different views of Chomsky, he is not the subject of the article), by all means include the views of THE TOPIC (which, as I have stated again and again in the talk page, is not 'Chomsky's views of US Terrorism'- it is the actions considered State Sponsored Terrorism). Wikipedia articles are not the place for Ann Coulter-style attacks about the source of material in the article.
I carefully reviewed the material that Ultra, you and Jtrainer have been trying to push into the article against concensus, but there was nothing in that material that was salvageable. Try finding some other source. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 22:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to spend all your time edit warring. I find you impossible to work with. You need to give reasons for things, not just repeat your conclusions over and over. Life.temp (talk) 03:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"I do not agree to this massive deletion." -- That's all you needed to say. For some reason you chose instead to request protection when you saw something happening that you didn't like, but I hope you see now that this wasn't the best thing to do. Next time just voice your opinion. Don't jump to protection, AfD, ANI, dispute resolution, etc. Just talk. It works, sometimes. Equazcion •✗/C • 10:56, 10 Apr 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I have tried to revert this load of original research by the editor, but you beat me to it. SNOMP does not Google at all in relation to the editor's perception of what it means. Not one hit. Well done. Ref (chew)(do) 13:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weeks or months, there will just be warring when it's unlocked. I didn't just take an interest--I've been watching it for three years and have the most edits to it (last I checked). The best we can achieve is semi-stability. I would rather actively edit, tightening the screws on sourcing and making it hard to mount a delete argument against sections. Marskell (talk) 11:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not that it isn't terrible, but the deaths at Hiroshima and Nagasaki are generally not estimated above 150,000. What concerns me is moving from "this is anti-Americanism" to "here are historical justifications for anti-Americanism." It should be done carefully. Marskell (talk) 19:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of roughly 100,000 deaths, provided by Japanese and American authorities, both of whom may have had reasons of their own for minimizing the death toll, seems to me arguably low in light of population density, wind conditions, and survivors' accounts. With an average of 103,000 inhabitants per square mile and peak levels as high as 135,000 per square mile, the highest density of any industrial city in the world, and with firefighting measures ludicrously inadequate to the task, 15.8 square miles (41 km²) of Tokyo were destroyed on a night when fierce winds whipped the flames and walls of fire blocked tens of thousands fleeing for their lives. An estimated 1.5 million people lived in the burned out areas.
1.5 million Japanese civilians died by Firebombing of Tokyo in World War II Igor Berger (talk) 19:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course this has a rise of Anti-Americanism in Japan, but Japanese people suppress their emotions and do not speak out. Remember toda they are still quazi-colonialized by America. Igor Berger (talk) 19:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An editor who is involved in edit war with you left a report at WP:AIV here. I rejected the request and left an edit summary directing them to the other boards.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 01:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken. Apologies. Tomayres (talk) 09:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
thanks ! I had a lot of discussion about this in the past. It's not illegal but like you said "breached the sovereignty.." it's not the same. In fact, Argentina and Israel made peace about it, so it's not illegal in retrospect anyway, also according to Argentinian law. It's wrong to say that, it's only inflammatory, and it's not what the source said, it's original interpretation. Amoruso (talk) 02:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. With all due respect, I agree that there are some problems here, but you seem to be viewing them through the prism of a viruently anti-American media source or sources there in Asia. True, the dollar is taking a dive and there's a problem in the housing market; I've lost all my equity for the time being due to declining values. On the other hand, we have nearly full employment and the Dow Jones has never been higher. I'm also fortunate enough to live in a desirable area which is expected to rebound before the end of the year. The problems we're facing are not only short term, they've been blown out of proportion IMO by media on both sides of the aisle because of this election year and I'm speaking from a conservative viewpoint. Take a look at Michael Savage's website or listen to his radio show to see what I mean. Heck, he doesn't seem to like anyone. :) I made my earlier comment thinking that you were speaking as a non-American and not an expatriate. That's why I removed the comment. Thanks for being polite about it on my talk page. Regards, --PMDrive1061 (talk) 07:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not. You're absolutely correct. The spirit of this project calls for neutrality, meaning that a subject, especially a complex one, needs to be presented warts and all. I've seen articles on abortion rights and liberal politicians mangled by the right wing and the articles on Bush, Reagan and conservative commentators savaged by those on the left. If you really want to have "fun," ask an administrator how many international users have been blocked for arguments over Serbia/Turkey relations over the years. I have to give you credit for choosing to edit such contentious articles. Sorry about my initial reaction. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, bro. I appreciate it. Guy who's been my best friend for more than thirty years is pretty liberal. We've always had interesting political discussions, to say the least. It's far more interesting and productive to have an intelligent debate on issues than to talk politics with someone who agrees with you. The rhetoric this election cycle is unlike anything I've seen before, making things sound worse than they are. Yes, there are problems. Big ones. But, we're a pretty resilient bunch. We'll get through this speed bump like we have hundreds of others. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 20:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Igor,
I thought I'd drop by your talk page for a change. I'm quite happy to remain uninvolved in this, and simply continue our enjoyable conversations at my talk page. To be honest, I haven't concerned myself much with your activities on Wikipedia beyond the initial User:Gohldelocks issue. You're a grownup, so you don't need me holding your hand, and I wouldn't be in any position to take a neutral stance anyway.
That said, if you'd like some advice on this, I'd be happy to provide it, either on wiki or off wiki. My general impression is you're trying to better the encyclopedia (although I disagree with some "improvements", and agree with others), but you seem to be going about it in an occasionally unproductive way.
If you're doing things your way for a reason, then like I said I'll let some more neutral admin handle things. But if it isn't your intent, you might benefit from a change in methods.
Something to think about. That's all I'm going to say unless I hear from you about it. --barneca (talk) 14:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Barneca, first I want to thank you for sticking your neck out and say a few words before you do. Igor Berger (talk) 01:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(typed in before barneca's comments below, I'm a slow typer :) Igor, I've watched and never commented on or been involved in your edits, so I think I'm qualified to make some observations:
Reply
Thank you for stopping by, and you are always welcome to my page to help me with my problems. Igor Berger (talk) 02:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Igor, I've never done this before (might have been wise to tell people that earlier, but...) so I need some time to gather my thoughts. Some very, very brief initial ideas:
I'm leaving in a few minutes, I'll talk to you tomorrow. Goodnight. --barneca (talk) 02:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's start with this and see where it takes us. 13:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Momus (artist) Herostratus Holocaust denialAung San Suu Kyi
(Currently in no particular order, although eventually we should prioritize)
Igor Berger (talk) 22:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Will think of more. Igor Berger (talk) 23:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
23:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment VirtualSteve I understand you have many conserns with me, and I would like to and willing to discuss every point with you. Please let's see what Barneca say before we talk more. Igor Berger (talk) 00:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(if unproductive, as defined by Igor or myself, it will be politely removed)
Igor, I have to go along with what many other editors are saying - you talk too much at times, and about things you are no expert in (please don't take offence). Talk less, listen more, and don't be personal in attacking editors, even those who may be making "bad edits". Take your time, as I said to you on my talk-page, we want good editors, you can be one if you over-come the problems being pointed out to you. Take it slow, you have people "on your side", but you upset a lot of people too. You never have upset me, and I will be watching this page, hoping that User:Barneca has the time, and the patience to help you. It is up to you Igor, you need to make real changes, (difficult, I know) your communications upset too many people (not me, as I said). Forget about that User, that is past. Talk to us, Igor, in your own words, don't take on too much and get out of your depth. I hope it all works out for the best. Peace --NewbyG (talk) 02:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While looking in my talk archives I stumbled across this older thread with Igor (he begins by asking about David Irving as a source). I'm linking it here because it seems to show at least three big mistakes in his thinking about sources. Perhaps at a fit time, if deemed helpful, Barneca can step Igor through this thread. Igor, there is no need to reply to this yet, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(While mentioned in the ANI threads, I personally don’t think these impact your ability to edit here productively)
This is almost a continuation of the ANI thread. One of the few comments Igor made in the ANI thread I found convincing is that it's hard to respond to people listing 10 things you've done wrong when there's a threat of blocking looming over your head. Now that the block has actually happened, let's take it slow. I must say I find it a little overwhelming myself, and imagine Igor finds it that way too. Igor, I like the idea someone mentioned above to just not post for a little bit, and reflect. You, I, and others agree this isn't going to be a quick process, so give everyone especially me a time to breathe. We're compiling a list of things to talk about; let's not actually talk about them yet.
Sorry to keep changing the rules of the game, I'm feeling my way thru this. I'm going to copy everything here so far to User:Barneca/Mentoring Igor. Can I ask those of you with specific incidents you want me to keep in mind to list them there, instead of here? Igor won't feel the need to respond right away, I'll have a chance to digest things, and we can postpose the beginning of an actual discussion until early to mid week next week. --barneca (talk) 15:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Admin User:Barneca has refactored my talk page because the Mediation Mentoring process was being addressed problematically with respect to me and Barneca. With the spirit of Wikipedia transperancy to editing and mediation process, I am providing a diff link to the origal discussion that has been hidden on my talk page. For the sake of transperancy and faireness please do not revert my edit or remove this message. Igor Berger (talk) 20:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Igor, I am new here and it seems that I went a bit too far by inserting a (sourced) paragraph about discrimination in the article about Israel. I would appreciate if you could take the time to give your voice in the related discussion. Springwalk (talk) 12:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These are some articles that I read! Not necessarily I want to edit them, but I may add or subtract something if I find it relevent. I do not really have a predefined set of articles that I am attracted to. I find something that interests me, I read it, and try to improve it. Igor Berger (talk) 23:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Advocating for Wikipedia Wikipedia on Digg Criticism on Durova on Digg - Durova and David radio interview Please come and participate in a public Wikipedia Roundtable room on Friend Feed Administrated by User:Durova and User:Igorberger
Rachel Marsden wikipediarachelmarsden.com http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Igorberger
Human Rights Activism Human Rights Advocating for Emisteve If someone likes to help please build this article Emisteve You can read their story on my Travel in Asia forum Emiko and Steve Human Drama Igor Berger (talk) 03:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pithy thoughts
Intent to edit
Thanks, Tyw7, Leading Innovations (Talk ● Contributions) 11:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you interested in Politics, Law or the United States? Do you enjoy expanding, creating or maintaining articles relating to those subjects? Or do you enjoy the small stuff? Or maybe you like learning about the United States Congress or the Commander in Chief.
Well, wait no longer, because we have a project for you! WikiProject United States Government is where all the cool Wikipedians who watch C-SPAN hang out! Join the project today and help us get it off the ground and flying.
Thanks in advance, « Diligent Terrier Bot (talk) 21:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC) [reply]
This message has been delivered by Diligent Terrier Bot on behalf of WikiProject United States Government. You have received it because you are a member of a related WikiProject or you have said you are interested in your userspace. Message written by Leonard^Bloom and Diligent Terrier.
Help us get the project off the ground and flying.
Greetings Igorberger,
My name is Sephiroth Storm, and I am attempting to revive Project Malware back from inactivity. I see that you have contributed in the past, and I was hoping you would be interested in joining us again. If you would, or you have any question, suggestions or comments, please leave a note on WP:MALW or on my talk page.
Thank You,
Sephiroth storm (talk) 19:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): User unblocked by John Vanderberg along with this comment - consensus at AN to give a second chance; provisional unblock pending mentoring framework with Franamax; which in part says conditional on his only editing pages within his userspace for xx days. The unblocking admin can set the quantity xx, and I would suggest a further condition that Igor and I reach a satisfactory mentoring arrangement, and that consensus for a full unblock is reached at ANI see here for full comment.
Request handled by: --VS talk 09:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.
Hi Igor. I have provisionally unblocked you in order that you can work with Franamax. If you start editing disruptively, there will be many admins who will reblock you, so please dont do anything too courageous. You should ensure that Franamax is aware of, and has approved of, the editing that you are going to do. If you are not sure, ask Franamax to clarify. i.e take it slow to begin with; no surprises, and the "provisional" nature of this unban will be lifted soon enough. Welcome back, John Vandenberg (chat) 09:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]