User talk:Igorberger/06-january-2008-25-January-2008

Wikipedia:Non-administrator_rollback

Wikipedia:Non-administrator_rollback is undermining the Truth ™ WikiPedia is not a democracy! Igor Berger (talk) 00:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I'm not sure if this is a joke or if it's meant to have meaning. Could you please clarify? --Wikiacc (°) 21:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiacc Thanks for stopping by. Igor Berger (talk) 21:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roughe Criminal Admin

arv irv arvv user carlinlord rever tw "template does not belong" irvv arvvv irvvv arvvvv User:65.188.38.31 WP:ABF i reverted vadalisim of anon soc sysop for violation of 3rr and engineering a bot attack arvvvvv irvvvv arvvvvvv sysopsoc, "Look, I'm following the rules. I posted the deletion temp and started discussion on the talk page. The temp is supposed to remain until issue is settled. You aren't a one-man judge and jury.)" irvvvvv arvvvvvvv sysopsoc. "3RR violation. You've been reported." As you can see there is one edit record missing look at AfD on sysopsoc and Edgarde, it is not there???
Edgarde edit I stood down!
65.188.38.31 {{IPVandal}} reported 65.188.38.31 Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism Igor Berger (talk) 13:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC) User:65.188.38.31, said Okay, since speedy deletion apparently isn't an option, we'll do this instead. what is this Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/PageName[reply]
Here is where things got strange! A bot came and deleted the article, I followed Wikipedia:IGNORE to preserve the article violating the WP:3RR. I clearly marked in edit sammary no bot when I reverted for the 4th time.
65.188.38.31 claims to report Igorberger 3RR violation University_of_South_Carolina_steroid_scandal

Checking the article history now there is no deletion by the bot present, no record of summary "no bot", the record has been expanged from the database. University_of_South_Carolina_steroid_scandal&action history

Only sysop with access to the database could have deleted the database record of the bot deletion permalink sid.igorberger an edit refactored by sysop an edit

Igor, While the IP user was clearly being disruptive in an attempt to get this article deleted, the University_of_South_Carolina_steroid_scandal was never deleted, by a bot or anyone else. WP:AFD is the proper method to use if one feels an article should be deleted, it allows other users to voice their opinions in the matter. While the nomination process in this case was initially incomplete, generally AFD notices should stay on the article until the discussion has run it's course and been closed with proper consensus. If you disagree with the AFD, then you can say so on the AFD page, which is linked from the notice. In this case, the article was kept.
Regarding edits on the Admin's Noticeboard, the IP user removed your edits to WP:AN, an admin RESTORED them. IP users can't be admins, further, because WP:AN has so many revisions, it is no longer possible to delete, then restore it without causing a major disruption to the servers that would require developer level access to resolve. Please don't throw around accusations of bad faith. --Versa geek 15:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence as clear as day, that a database record of permalink was deleted. RFDM is missing. I have taken a SnapShot of both records left and right. I will leave this in the stewards hands and will submit the SnapShots to Arbcom when and if requested. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 16:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Going out for a few minutes wikibreak...Igor Berger (talk) 16:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stalking

Durova (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Jehochman (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
A. B. (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Ioeth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Igorberger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Stalking has a number of meanings in hacker's speak or Netlang. To see the definiton of stalker refer to Jargon file One is keeping an eye on an activity for whatever reason it maybe - survilance. I stalk admins to learn from them. I stalk a user if I have a reason to believe that user is abusive to Wikipedia. Igor Berger (talk) 07:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hacker (computer security) Black hat Methods Social engineering (security)

Blocked

Could you explain why this is put here? You haven't been blocked. JdeJ (talk) 10:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3RR ™ Igor Berger (talk) 11:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am hungy

Waiting for my dinner..:)

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. JdeJ (talk) 10:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incivility

edit

Enough! Please address other editors in a civil fashion. Uncle G (talk) 11:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that was doing my job. If you need to know more speak to User:Durova and User:Jehochman Regards, Igor Berger (talk) 11:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Being uncivil to other editors is not your job. Uncle G (talk) 15:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/University_of_South_Carolina_steroid_scandal Igor Berger (talk) 12:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move suggestion

You were saying there is "something strange" that relates to my suggestion to re-title University of South Carolina steroid scandal? I hope this doesn't involve my learning more about the Anonymous Gamecock. / edg ☺ ☭ 14:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:DeadlyAssassin name problematic

Watching User:DeadlyAssassin name problematic. Igor Berger (talk) 17:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary

What exactly do you mean by this edit summary? Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 17:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of rouge elements here. Igor Berger (talk) 18:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure I understand that comment either? Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 18:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I am sorry to hear that you are a such an Emily Litella. Igor Berger (talk) 23:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

I understand I was being quite dickish during your problems with stalking and all, and for that, I'm sorry.--Phoenix -wiki 18:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey User:Phoenix-wiki nice to see you, and no need for Sorry! We are all brothers here, always ready to help each other! You always welcome to come around, Igor Berger (talk) 19:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Recommendation to CobraGeek WP:BLP

User:CobraGeek with there is a problem for all parties conserned to understand the inner workings of WP:BLP, why not bring the BLP to WP:ANI instead of arguing your point here in the dark. Let's shed some light on this issue to avoid the repetition of what has transpired the other day. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 02:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to let the story stand on its merits, and certainly reasonable edits by other editors in good faith will take the article where it needs to go. There are lots of good people here. The story is what it is, very accurate, clear, and to the point. Hopefully we can keep the anon IP vandalism under control. Thanks for the help. --CobraGeek (talk) 02:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem always ready to help to keep WP:NPOV, unless you are building a human being! Say no to human cloning! Igor Berger (talk) 14:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have NoBody

Billy Evans, the Boy who Needs a Body Transplant Igor Berger (talk) 15:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only God can give you a body and only God can take it away! While one may have no body there is a spirit and a soul. When a day comes that machines control our bodies that day we will all be NoBody! Igor Berger (talk) 19:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I am out, yet again. No problem'o. I was just about to leave Wikipedia again on Christmas day on my own. Look at me, now. Am I editing anything? Heck no! This place is a colossal waste of time with tons of stupid rules designed to waste the time of truly creative individuals while promoting the activities of totally untalented editors who only know how to tear apart the work of others.

But be assured Wikipedia has given me tons of new material to write on. And, I certainly will be writing elsewhere, if not on Wikipedia. I will be spreading the message about the great Satan. -- John Gohde (talk) 18:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John do not condemn Satan, because without bad there is no good! And while you might be out officially, I am sure I will meet you unofficially as an anon or some nice user name like SecretAdmirer. I was hoping you would stay because you have so much to teach us, but you desided to die for the cause.

The thing about that is problematic is not what you say but how you say it. But who knows now that they got you, they may be coming after me! Hey I can use the vacation anyway..:)

I am getting invites from so many interesting places, to write about business, travel, security, social media networking, so I have a lot of choices. Well I do like WikiMerryWorld. Anyway, take care and all the best. Go on some trip some place. And I did unblock you from my G group, you can sign up again there, but please do not delete any messages you post, because I believe in transparency!

Speaking of new material to write on, just look at the diffs that the proposed decision findings of fact are using to justify their "engage in a variety of such behavior, including incivility, personal attacks, and assumptions of bad faith" decision. Take a real close look at the last two diffs. I dare you not to bust up laughing uncontrollably. Must be that when your betters complain about you, putting up any type of a defense is an automatic "assumption of bad faith?" Of course, your betters are always exempt from having to follow the same rules. It is only uncivil and disruptive editing when I attempt to defend myself. But, when my betters do it, why of course it is just Wikipedia at its best. -- John Gohde (talk) 15:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John my talk page is not WP:FORUM and should not be used to WP:SOAP. I recommended to you bring Arbcom to ANI User:Anthon01 and I recommended mentorship, but you do not want to listen. Please do not post on my talk page again with regards to Arbcom and Arbcom decision. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 20:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incivility on User talk:DeadlyAssassin

This comment is particularly uncivil towards the new user DeadlyAssassin. His username does not violate policy and I urge you to always assume good faith when dealing with users. Until it is demonstrable that a user's aim is to not help the project there is no reason to accuse them of harmful motives. Thank you. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 14:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your reply on my talk page, I can assure you, Igor, that you are not using the term "social engineered" in the right context. I have had formal training in security including social engineering, and it's now part of my job, so I can assure you that you are incorrect here. Please remember that you are not the "wiki-police", and that making assumptions like you did about DeadlyAssassin is unfriendly and unwelcome. I compel you to please refrain from interacting with that user further, unless initiated by them, or you may be subject to a block for continued harassment. You may wish to take a look at WP:NOT as many of your contributions indicate that you may think Wikipedia is some kind of social network, which it is not. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 14:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:loeth it is very nice that, "I have had formal training in security including social engineering," but this is my profession! An offer today, "As an editor at the german linux magazine, I am currently looking for authors who would want to write articles for our next publication on Spam. The "Linux Technical Review 07 - Spam" is adressed to professional, skilled admins, technicians and IT-managers with a very high technical knowledge." So please WP:AGF on my part when I bring something to attention of WikiPedians. Igor Berger (talk) 14:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am assuming your good faith, Igor. You have contributed your knowledge very well to some of Wikipedia's security topics. However, leaving baseless messages on other users' talk pages accusing them of bad intentions is just uncalled for. We're here to build an encyclopedia, not go on a witch hunt. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 14:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then you tell me how to do it!!! Do I need to watch each user that maybe a problem 6 months, one year, two years down the line? Igor Berger (talk) 14:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to actively watch any user, really, and do so could constitute a violation of WP:STALK. Until they do something to prove otherwise, you should simply assume good faith on their part; that's the only point I wanted to make here.

Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)}

Oh, I do not actively watch anyone, but only recent changes on my watch list..:) Same like Social Network Aggregation today. It was not on my watch list but Social network service is. And when I saw a change there that was not correct with WP:policy I investigated. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 15:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to be careful with your evil brother, it is dangerous..:) L and I wow....Igor Berger (talk) 06:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect signature - caution

Regarding your recent edit at User talk:VirtualSteve. Please be very careful when signing pages with incorrect data. Your edit on that page when you signed Emily Litella rather than your own name seems to be setting up a deliberate hoax. I will assume good faith at this time but in the future please sign all of your posts with your own name and by using the four tilde system ~~~~. --VS ^talk 01:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not sign Emily Litella I forgot to sign. Am I Emily Litella? Igor Berger (talk) 02:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps if you were clearer whilst remaining civil, and remembered to sign your name Igor - we would both not waste time?--VS ^talk 02:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Steve I am very clear. I asked you to delete a duplicate page and what did you do? And the bot signed for me bot signed for me. Igor Berger (talk) 02:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Igor - again please be clear. Firstly where did you ask me to delete a duplicate page - please provide me with the exact place of the request. Secondly, it appears from messages posted earlier on your talk page that you are having some issue with Ioeth which I am not involved with - but for some reason you deliberately referred me to his doppelganger account at User:loeth which gave me no more clearer information - and you used the following rather cryptic message to do so There were multiple articles which User:loeth redirected to Social_Network_Aggregation The author who started the article User:Ujwaltickoo WP:AGF can use some help with formating. I recommended to him to do it in his sandbox User:Ujwaltickoo/Social_Network_Aggregation Thanks . I do not think that we have ever crossed paths before so unless your request was a Speedy Delete that I declined, would you please take the time to state your problems in clear non-riddling English and I will be happy to help!--VS ^talk 02:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steve, I do not have any issues with you or with User:Ioeth, I must have misspelled his name when making reference to him. Actually he helped me with the redirect of the page that I marked for deletion but you would not delete. Let's forget about it really it is not worth to go into. I was really helping a new user with making an article and he created multiple pages, but the issue has been fixed. And sorry my bad trying to be tongue and chick with you! So lets be friends and go into the future..:) Igor Berger (talk) 05:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow I just realized. I and L...Igor Berger (talk) 05:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay let me clarify it once and for all to clear the muddy waters between us.

User:Ujwaltickoo created Social Network Aggregation but it was not WP:policy so I CSD it and told him to create the article in his sandbox.
He creates it wrong Ujwaltickoo/Social Network Aggregation I CSD.
I created correct one for him User:Ujwaltickoo/Social Network Aggregation
Ujwaltickoo/Social Network Aggregation, you say no to my CSD, User:Ioeth says yes.

Okay? Igor Berger (talk) 06:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well that makes a bit more sense except I did not decline Ujwaltickoo/Social Network Aggregation, I declined the Speedy at Social network aggregation - See here for your speedy request and here for my decline for not being an appropriate speedy reason. So I hope that I was correct in not deleting the legitimate article. I am sure that you will see it pays to be careful as to how you tag article, and yes to answer your question we can be friends. Okay? --VS ^talk 06:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, my bad again. I tagged the wrong one! Thanks, for watching my back! Well I am a strange one, when it comes to getting to know people. But this way we really know who is who and can trust each other in the future. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 06:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I actually didn't delete the article at Ujwaltickoo/Social Network Aggregation. I did a history merge with it and Social Network Aggregation and then deleted the inappropriate redirect left at Ujwaltickoo/Social Network Aggregation. Then I moved Social Network Aggregation to Social network aggregation to make the title proper. I declined a CSD request out there too because it didn't apply. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 13:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ioeth you did everything perfectly. Any suggestion what I could have done instead of CSD to make a passing admin job easier and clearer identifying what needs to be done? Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 21:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, you did just fine. That was one of those weird situations that we don't really have a CSD tag that covers it, but I saw what was going on so I took care of it. Cheers! Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 21:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Andy Beard

I have nominated Andy Beard, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy Beard. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. _→AzaToth 01:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have received your message - I have put the AfD on my watch list and in a few days - when a consensus is reached I will look to closing the discussion (unless another admin beats me to it).--VS ^talk 09:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS I suggest that you spend as much of your time as possible finding notability references (which do not appear at this stage to be convincing many others) that can be verified according to the guidelines and you might get some other editors to change their mind.--VS ^talk 09:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have been collecting notability about Andy Beard for about half a year now. I hope some other editiors who know Social media can come to the plate. Igor Berger (talk) 09:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Igor - I don't want you to thank me at this stage - indeed having looked at the article and the discussion to date - if I was admin closing the discussion now it would be on the basis of a consensus to delete. I am however trying to point you in the right direction and I wonder if you have read the actual verifiability and notability guidelines in detail. Perhaps even more pointed, and speaking quite frankly; canvassing for support will not help the article one iota. Writing verifiable material will!.--VS ^talk 09:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Steve, I do not want support, but neutral objective observation of the issue at hand. Igor Berger (talk) 09:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I give up, delete delete delete User:Igorberger/Andy Beard will live! Igor Berger (talk) 11:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really, as it contains copyright violations. _→AzaToth 12:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Well you know what to do! A.....F....D...Fubar. Igor Berger (talk) 12:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You mean MFD :) Rocket000 (talk) 21:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for coming back to me. It was deleted already but I have everything backed up. So if you like to give it a go, you should be able to build a good BLP article very easy. You can work in my sandbox and move it to live space once it is finished. Please use this User:Igorberger/Andy_Beard and add the information that the guy with the Polish name, who is the BLP person, left here Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Andy_Beard. Thank you and highly appreciated, Igor Berger (talk) 22:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Userpage adoption boxes

Just a small comment on your userpage. I notice you have both a request for adoption and an offer to adopt. You can't possibly be both; users shouldn't adopt until they've gathered a lot of experience, say around 9-12 months. Or sooner, if they've already been adopted and been "unadopted" because they've been taught all they can. Tuvok[^T@lk/_Improve] 04:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have 30 years of business experience. 15 years of programming experince. And 5 years of anti-spam experience. I contribute to PHSDL Project Honeypot Spam Domains List, StopBadware.org, SpamAssassin and I am on WikiPedia Spam patrol. Igor Berger (talk) 04:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Atually if you would look, you would know that I am adopted by many users, and have adopted one to help him. Igor Berger (talk) 04:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look where? There's no indication of adoption status. And what you say is happening is exactly what you shouldn't be doing. 30 years' business experience != 30 years' Wikipedia experience. Please "graduate" the adoption program yourself before adopting others. Tuvok[^T@lk/_Improve] 07:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please respect WP:NPA Igor Berger (talk) 07:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What in the above post is, to you, a personal attack? I had no intention of making one, and if I did inadvertently, I apologize. This was supposed to just elicit an explanation for the dual boxes. :-/ Tuvok[^T@lk/_Improve] 07:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop Stalking my page and respect WP:FORUM and WP:SOAP. Thank you and this is your last warning. Igor Berger (talk) 07:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) WP:STALK means to follow an editor around the wiki and edit the same articles. I am not doing so. None of the criteria in WP:SOAP apply to this, as I am not advertising, promoting myself, advocating anything, or making a filibuster about a world issue. Finally, the adoption program is a part of Wikipedia; it is therefore a Wikipedia-related topic.

I will be honest with you; I see no evidence that I have violated the word or the spirit of the policies you have cited. It looks like we could be experiencing language problems. Those are the only explanations I can come up with. Please, if I am wrong on any of the above counts, feel free to correct (in a polite manner, with a specific quote, preferably); I'd love to improve my phrasing if you find it WP:BITE-ish (though you're not quite a newbie anymore ;-). I'd much appreciate it if you would assume a more civil tone, though; from my end, your messages are coming across as somewhat hostile, as though you're losing your cool. Tuvok[^T@lk/_Improve] 07:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Voyagerfan5761 I left you a message on your talk page. Please stop WP:Trolling my talk page. Igor Berger (talk) 08:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zlob trojanic

I just got the trojan, but not from a pornographic site, I have isfmm.exe, icmntr.exe, isfmntr.exe, and icthis.exe on my task manager. I set all their priority to low because I can't delete them. What should I do next, and if possible, can I get rid of this trojan for good without spending money or taking too much of a drastic change? Prottos007 (talk) 00:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You will need to unistall the Malware software one by one. Try using hijackthis and bring it to castlecops.com for help. I am not familiar with all the processes. What I usually do is Google each "exe" to identify if it is a problem or not. A good anivirus software like NOD32 may fix the problem for you. Googd luck, Igor Berger (talk) 00:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: About Category:Wikipedia help

Hello, Igorberger. You have new messages at Ioeth's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 16:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: can you help me with Andy Beard

It is marked AfD and I have about 4 days to get Andy Beard notable. If you can help me out would be greatly appreicated. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 11:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I've never heard of Andy Beard so there's not much I can add to the article.-Phoenix -wiki 20:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Beard AfD

I don't know much about Mr. beard I'm afraid so I can't help with details, but right now, the article almost reads like an advertisement about him rather than an encyclopedic article. My biggest concern is that it's almost a vanity piece rather than a biography. I'm going to look at it a bit more, and I'll give you some pointers later on what I'd start changing. Wildthing61476 (talk) 00:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it is better that you do not know about him and modify what is on the article to make it WikiPedia acceptable. I am not really good at writing articles. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 00:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay in responding Igor _ I have been busy at my real life working. In fact AfD guidelines state not that there is a minimum of 5 days for the debate but that Articles listed here are debated for up to five days. In the case of this AfD not only was the consensus clearly to delete the article - the discussion had degenerated to a limited conversation between a number of parties - with no improvement reflecting notability to the article itself. My suggestion is that you consider rewriting the article slowly in your own sandbox and then when you think you have met the criteria set by Wikipedia for such articles ask one or three experienced editors if you think it is ready to go back up.--VS ^talk 06:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Steve, I am not really good at doing articles that is why I wished you would not have deleted it but allowed other editors do WP:BLP. I am sure there is enough WP:Notability for a BLP. So is there any why to bring it back the Andy Beard to life and get the full 5 days? If you can help me with BLP pleaase do User:Igorberger/Andy Beard Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 06:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No-one was actually helping you directly with notability and BLP edits. If you set up a sandbox page I will copy and paste the deleted version to that page for you to work on - you will be able to ask friends to help there but not renew the page until you get an okay from others that are more experienced. If you renew it before it meets wikipedia guidelines it will probably be speedy deleted. Let me know once you have your sandbox page up - please tell me on my talk page as I am not actually watching your page.--VS ^talk 07:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steve I had a backup on my drive so I am all set with that. And there where a few people helping like User:Jehochman and user User:Cumbrowski and the BLP subject himself User:AndrzejBroda. Dude you pulled the triger too soon! Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Andy_Beard Regards, Igor Berger (talk) 07:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you are set then (Dude?). I did notice before I deleted that you had discussed this with User:Cumbrowski who had told you that it was likely to get deleted and how to set up your own sandbox article. Figured that you were probably just having a little whinge - which is fair enough because no-one likes to get an article deleted. However you know what they say - once is a mistake twice is being silly - so take a note also of where User:Cumbrowski said Keep in mind that you can add the article again, if it is deleted, but make sure that the article is solid, especially regarding reliable sources, which by definition imply notability as well. Personally I think you are getting the hang of Wikipedia - you carry on a bit from time to time (as you admitted on my talk page) but you are getting there. Keep editing - stay calm!--VS ^talk 07:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry Steve I find your actions as admin problamatic and I have asked User:Durova for advise User_talk:Durova#I_have_an_admin_competancy_problem_with_User:VirtualSteve Regards, Igor Berger (talk) 07:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Igor Berger asked me to comment. I think VirtualSteve makes an excellent offer to post the info from the deleted article into a userspace sandbox. The consensus said the article isn't quite ready for prime time. I suggest you check with Jehochman and get the thumbs-up from him before bringing it back to article space. Durova^Charge! 07:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Durova, I already backed up the article that is not the proble. I would have liked to keep the article in a public space a little longer, the full 5 days of WP:AFD, and give other editors a chance to contribute. Thank you for your input. Igor Berger (talk) 08:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey sorry Igor, I've been busy on Commons lately and kinda of been neglecting Wikipedia, so I'm sorry I didn't reply earlier. I did manage to find a copy of the article, and I must say it definitly did not meet Wikipedia's standards. Even if I knew anything about Andy Beard, I don't think I could have helped an article like that. Even if the man's notable enough to have his own article, it would have had to be totally rewritten. (The newer version is better, but still reads like an advert and a blog rather than an encyclopedic article.) I'm not knowledgeable or interested enough in this given area to help you rewrite it, but I may be able to help with smaller issues like copy-editing and citing some references to help with notability issues (if I can, I didn't look into it much). The sandbox thing is a good idea. Keep in mind the userspace is also in a public space - other editors can still contribute. I'm just concerned, based on some of your comments (e.g. "Saying Andy Beard is not notable, is like saying the earth is flat and there is no Jesus Christ.") and the article itself, you may be a little too biased to write this article with a neutral point of view. Of course, you can, you just have to be extra careful in how you present the information.

I can also give you a few pointers. Citing personal blogs (especially, your own) is not acceptable. You need to use reliable sources. I would also encourage you to take a look at WP:CITE to see how to provide full citations instead merely giving an URL. Avoid peacock terms like "important". Watch the tone. For example, things like "Andy Stands up for Bloggers" is not-NPOV and informal (and incorrectly capitalized). You should refer to the subject by his full name or surname (see WP:NAMES). From the article it's obvious you oppose some actions of Google and support those of Andy Beard, this is not good as it violates our neutrality policy. I see you are starting to get the hang of the Wikipedia thing, so I'm not going to keep throwing policies and guidelines at you. You know where to find them. But please try to keep those things in mind. Good luck. Rocket000 (talk) 21:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I did not see this message. You are right about everything you said. I am just too burned out defending the article and there is WP:OWNERSHIP WP:TONE. I guess I could do it, but I rather someone else did, based on information I dug up. But I undesrstnad you are busssy, so let's seee how things go. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 23:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Seowiki

Igor, this user last spammed at 23:17. Hu12 warned him at 23:20. You warned him again (with a higher level template) at 23:34.

I was reluctant to tamper with someone else's talk page entry, but I encourage to consider removing that warning. Yes, the person was misbehaving, but we normally don't give further warnings unless there's further misbehaviour. Regards, --A. B. ^(talk) 00:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Atually it is more like 7 times that we had to revert his actions. If you want to remove the warning please do, but first check the contribution history. Igor Berger (talk) 00:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Block

I know that, but he shouldn't have marked the reasons for deletion as "Bull Shit". jj137 ^♠ 01:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a sockpuppet account. Let's see if he or she escalates. Igor Berger (talk) 01:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All right. I unblocked him but told him to keep his "anger issues" (per say) down. jj137 ^♠ 01:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. If he contineus to be disruptive put a 24 hour block and see if it helps! Igor Berger (talk) 01:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Watch Special:Contributions/General_Westmoreland Igor Berger (talk) 01:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Using Gmail

In return to your question, I just find gmail better than hotmail and i don't like using my ISP provided email address for Public things. PookeyMaster (talk) 02:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PokeyMaster. I have noticed you like development and FF, so maybe gMail may not be best if you want to have control on your enviroment and privacy. Set up a hosting account for about 5 usd a month, or may even have free one's and apply SpamAssassin to block the Spam mail much better. If you hurry PokeyMaster.com is available and you can have me at PokeyMaster.com Igor Berger (talk) 02:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiasiantravel

Hi! I started the article on Wikiasiantravel on my subpage as suggested by WLU. It needs some editors to check it up and see if it'd good enough to stand on its own page. I don't know much which editor to approach. This is the User:Peachyms/WikiAsianTravel

Thanks.

Peachyms (talk) 05:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good I will take a look at it. Igor Berger (talk) 06:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

VirtualSteve and Igorberger Complaint

Please stop. If you continue to use talk pages such as User talk:VirtualSteve for inappropriate discussion, as described here, you may be blocked. Please stop trolling my page and using it as a forum for your own nonsense. --VS ^talk 09:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

VirtualSteve if you do not know what an admin is maybe you should step down. Regards, Igor Berger (talk) 09:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You called this a troll style post but it is a computer software exploit. The back slash is the exploit. exploit Regards, Igor Berger (talk) 09:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been watching your interaction with VS and others. You have been politely asked to cease trolling on his talk page and you have continued. This edit in particular is provocative. Now I am warning you. If you continue to harrass other editors with nonsense requests and inappropriate templates, you will be blocked from editing. Stick to contributing, try and follow well meaning advice and stay cool. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 10:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your concern but there is no problem and we are woorking on fixing the software bug that VirtualSteve did not understand and called it Trolling. Igor Berger (talk) 10:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

VirtualSteve please do not call software engineers Trolls.

wikimedia report dir slash possible bug Igor Berger (talk) 11:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Filled bugzilla bug report dir slash rendering bug 12703 Igor Berger (talk) 13:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

VirtualSteve agreed to peace and right away broke peace Igor Berger (talk) 08:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I recommended a block of a vandal User:Wfgh66 but VirtualSteve went to his User_talk:Wfgh66 page and sad WP:SEI is a joke and he would investigate to unblock him. Later the user was indefinitly blocked by User:Ronnotel. Very bad case of vandalism! Wfgh66 history was purged by another admin to protect Wikipedia. indef block the idef block at ANI documented The history deletion admin User:Beetstra. If requested VirtualSteve edit to the ban user, questioning my edit and my block recommendation, can be brought to life. Igor Berger (talk) 09:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Undue prejudice against WP:SEI essay documented MKoltnow talk page Igor Berger (talk) 09:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Continues attack and stalking to provoke other editors, in this case User:Veritas against user Igorberger Igor Berger (talk) 09:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Social engineering Or just plainly incompetant admin? Igor Berger (talk) 10:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
VirtualSteve is fantastic admin and very kind to help me understand that I must not SPAM my SEI article all over wikipedia -my agreement and my thank you to Steve here. :) --VS ^talk 11:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Steve and welcome to my chambers. Now let me take a break I am tired..:) Igor Berger (talk) 11:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will never let you take a break Igor until you show me and wikipedia that you are a good editor and not trolling - but perhaps that will come sooner now that I can point you to this essay every time (as you cry above) that you say you are picked on :) )--VS ^talk 11:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds great brother. So you seeWP:SEI works for everyone including me and you! Igor Berger (talk) 12:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

VirtualSteve accusation of Igoberger of WP:COI here closed Igor Berger (talk) 21:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Debate over Article for Deletion: Clemson University football recruiting scandal

Clemson University football recruiting scandal has been nominated for deletion per WP:AFD. Please participate in the debate here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clemson University football recruiting scandal, if possible. Thanks. --Thör ^hammer 09:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry I do not know anything about the article but only was there to prevent edit war. Igor Berger (talk) 09:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]