User:Franamax/Igorberger

First steps

Editing in my sandbox, per AN decision

Added section on Wikipedia editing

I prefer no one comments on it at this time, because it will sideline the original intent of "Second Chance" of building an article. We can talk about this latter. For now it is just my thoughts. Igor Berger (talk) 16:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Editing Oden Icebreaker

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

Well, other than the grammar error you made ("not only it can"), it's not bad, but your change is quite vague. Any vessel can serve as a stand-alone vessel. Do you mean a stand-alone research vessel? Cargo ship? Helicopter base? So it would help if you could clarify what exact purposes other than ice-breaking it can accommodate.

And there may be more you can do. It looks like the ship is currently involved in an Antarctic research project, and just the minor detail that it was the first non-nuclear surface vessel to reach the North Pole (in 1991). ;) It even has its own Google Earth tracking link, though I couldn't figure out how to zoom in on it.

I found all that stuff with just a little searching online. I was able to find several relatively decent sources, though I stopped before absolutely nailing down the "first to the Pole" bit. Maybe this would be a good project for you to work a little more on. Getting your grammar right is important, even though other people can fix it later, you need to try very hard to get it right the first time. And I would be interested to see how well you can research and cite sources, which would also help to satisfy Gwen with a concrete example of your skill.

So: not perfect but not horrible. I think you can do better though. Keep trying! Regards. Franamax (talk) 05:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

See also discussion ay my talk page here. Igor, let's keep as much as we can here on your talk page. I'll take a look at your latest changes. Franamax (talk) 11:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem. We will keep the discussion going on my page. If I need your help, I will just come to your page to leave a note. Igor Berger (talk) 11:25, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, so your latest changes in your sandbox were to say that it can function as a "research vessel" - why? Because it was the first thing I said? Where did you read that it was a research vessel? Put all the links (or book pages, if you've been reading a book about the ship) right here, then we can figure out how to properly cite the sources. And same thing for saying it was the first conventionally powered vessel to reach the pole - why do you say that?

For now, just place here on this page the links you're relying on for your changes to the article. See WP:LINK for how to do that. We can work through how to properly cite a source in the article itself after you've done the basic research. Franamax (talk) 12:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Can function as a research vessel, I got from here http://www.sjofartsverket.se/templates/SFVXPage____1077.aspx

The first conventional powerd vessel to reach North Poll, I got from you. Do you have reference? Igor Berger (talk) 12:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I probably could give you the reference. But I left it specifically for you after I saw it. If it's me editing the article, that doesn't really help you, does it? I saw a mention at one of the Swedish sites (from googling "oden icebreaker"), then I think I googled "oden north pole 1991", but I'm not sure. It would be nice if you could find it yourself.

The research vessel bit - OK, but all you're doing is re-reading the same reference already in the article. To actually add to the article, you will find something new or add explanation. How is it used as a research vessel? At the very least, the scientific paper I found on-line about the stress sensors in the hull on the North Pole voyage; or the current Antarctic mission, where it may be being used as more than just an icebreaker - it looked like it may have some research functions also. But I don't want to write it for you Igor, I want you to write it. If that's too tough, you can look for something easier to work on. Franamax (talk) 13:03, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Added reference to the non nuclear vessel from secondary industry source. http://www.polar.se/expeditioner/swedarctic2008/english/oden_unique.html I have to take baby steps, so I can learn how to edit article. Please bare with me. What is next? Igor Berger (talk) 13:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

If possible, you should find a definite source, such as a news article from Sweden, or commentary from an independent polar news site. Alternatively, search for "non-nuclear first ship to north pole" maybe, to see if the Oden claim can be disproved in favour of another ship. I think you found the first ref that I did, I will look later and I will be disappointed if I find more by myself. I'm hoping that you will learn to do good research on your own, not just follow my clues. Franamax (talk) 14:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I actually found the link before I read your clue referring to the Swedish sites. But you did point me in the right direction. Keep holding my hand and do not let go! ;-) Igor Berger (talk) 15:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• Found nice pictures of an expedition, but I do not think we can use them because of licensing? http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/multimedia/2007/12/ff_arctic_ss Igor Berger (talk) 13:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they are very good pictures, no, I doubt we can use them from the wired.com website. But it looks like the author of the pix may work at Woods Hole O.I., so you would need to check at their site. It may be government funded research with a public release for images, so you never know until you check. That reminds me, when I was searching around, I saw some Commons images come up, not sure if they're all shown in the photo gallery. Franamax (talk) 14:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• Maybe we can start a new section on the article concerning the current expedition? Do you have a link to such information? Igor Berger (talk) 13:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure, it's your sandbox. Give it a try. It might end up being better as "Expeditions", describing all we can find; but for noe, have a try at "Current expedition". Franamax (talk) 14:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I will have a search for the Current expedition link. If you have one, please help. Maybe later can expand and elaborate on other expeditions. Rome was not build in one day, neither will this article. Wikipedia is timeless!?! Igor Berger (talk) 15:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Searched for Oden icebreaker expeditions and found the right link http://www.polartrec.com/high-arctic-change-09 There are 3 expeditions 2009, 2008, 2007. Will make reference to lead members and the mission for each expedition in the area Expeditions. I wonder if I can use pics from the site? Two brains better than one, as long as we going in the same direction! Igor Berger (talk) 15:34, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, added 2008 expedition. Please take a look. Igor Berger (talk) 09:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I also added the 2007 expedition. I think describing these two expeditions is enough. If a reader is interested, he/she can research further. The article has improved compared to before. What other modifications would you suggest? Igor Berger (talk) 11:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Igorberger, yes I've been a little busy and sorry for that. Also, I've been waiting to see how your enthusiasm and research skills develop. I've just spent a little while looking over this situation with the Oden. I'm glad to see you've made progress! I'll go through my items, ending with a critique of what you've done so far.

• In re your question to Xeno, I'd asked you to stay in the sandbox for a few days and unfortunately got busy for those same few days. So morally, I can't insist that you stay in your sandbox anymore. For large changes, I think it might be better if you stick with the Oden article in your sandbox, just so we can talk things over a bit more (see my comments, soon to come). I promise I will pay more attention now, so let's say two more days and if you're not getting feedback from me within a day at most, you should go ahead and make article edits.
• Also, I was thinking that you might be proposing small edits to other articles - fixing typos, finding references, adding categories, the kind of small stuff you'd initially said you'd be comfortable with. For those kind of minor fixes, I would turn you loose almost immediately, but you haven't proposed anything. But it's good that you've put effort into the Oden article! (more to come) Franamax (talk) 09:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• And I was still focussed on that North Pole cruise and the early history, which I just spent a few hours on. Here is a good link for the Southern Ocean programme [1] which also confirms the North Pole date of Sep 1991 along with the German breaker Polarstern. It doesn't specifically say "first conventional powered vessel", but it's from the NSF website and backs up the other source. Here is another source [2] making the claim that it was the first conventional ship and describing the large collaboration of international scientists involved. It seems like a very historic voyage. Here is a link to another historic voyage, the first surface traverse across the Canada Basin, with the USCG Healy in 2005. And here is a link to a PDF from a US military site that seems to say that Oden was of a brand new design concept at the time and gives some great details, diagrams and everything. When I click it, it wants me to save it then open, but it works fine when it's loaded. You can get the HTML version through Google "oden polarstern north pole first vessel 1991" on the 2nd page of results, but the HTML doesn't work well, since it's a scanned document. So there's definitely a lot of history with this ship. Franamax (talk) 09:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• Now I've just gone through the edits you've made to the sandbox Oden article and put in my critique in [square brackets]. It may look a little harsh, but I've deliberately made comments to my ideals on how to properly develop articles. You're not expected to measure up to all of that just to edit here. [3]
• Igor, you're at the stage now where you're a fairly bad but not totally awful editor. You do have some idea of what's required. There are a lot of things you're not good at. Grammar, citations, reading multiple sources in a critical way - you will need to get better at that. None of those are reasons for me to prevent you from editing articles, lots of raw editors do the same thing.

Directly editing articles

• The main thing is for you to watch your behaviour. You can start making those changes to the Oden article if you want, but I will tear them apart immediately, and someone else may be watching that article and will do the same thing. The key is for you to not get upset when your edits get reverted (which they may) or changed (which they certainly will); if you think a revert is wrong, bring it up calmly on the talk page but don't push the issue; and always try to think of a better way to phrase your change and look for a better source to support what you think should be in the article.
• I'd prefer to spend a little more time discussing your sandbox edits so that we can get the Oden article right. I'd rather see you making the changes in your sandbox and eventually to the article, because otherwise I would just go and rewrite the whole article right now - she's a great ship and I've learned a lot about her! But I won't stand in your way, it's up to you. I'm back now, so I can pay more attention at your sandbox too.
• Just be aware that when you start editing mainspace, it may be a rough ride at times. Don't get upset. Come back here to ask me anytime, and I will be sure to let you know if I disapprove. Working more on the Oden sandbox is up to you. Franamax (talk) 11:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Next step going live to article Oden

I am going to incorporate my changes to article Oden main space. You are welcome to revert me, keep something that I added, bring the discussion to the article's talk page. I will leave it in your hands. I think doing it in the sandbox is to sterile and in the vacuum. Doing it live is realistic. per WP:BOLD Igor Berger (talk) 15:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

We can always come back to the sand box if and when needed. Even work at both simultaneously. Igor Berger (talk) 15:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, modified the lead, and it looks much better. Still need to work on expeditions but will take time. Oden was involved in military expeditions and oil drilling expeditions. There is just so much stuff to read about Oden, and then think about how to arrange it. For now I am just doing small edits in the main space on different articles. Oden does take a lot of energy and love. Thinking of adding a section on design and modification. Will build up Oden with time! Igor Berger (talk) 23:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

My Wikipedia Experience

Moved to User:Igorberger/Mentoring, not to interfere with Second Chance article editing. Igor Berger (talk) 12:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Mentoring agreement

Hi Igorberger, the terms of your unblock are generally described here. They include working in your sandbox (for "xx" days, which weren't specified by the unblocking admin), and reaching a satisfactory agreement with myself. I would propose the following:

• You mostly confine yourself to article content edits (and article talk edits) for the next two months.
• You refrain from editing any article or article talk pages concerning malware for two months.
• You refrain from mentioning your theory on "Social engineering Internet" for six months.
• You send me at least one email right now so that I know the lines of communication are there.
• Send me at least one email before posting on an admin page on any ongoing issues, for the next four months. I check my gmail regularly and can respond in thirty seconds to five minutes once I read it. Formal wiki-posts take hours.

If you will agree to these, I'll agree that you are free to edit generally. I'll post to AN to confirm such if you wish. I'll continue to monitor (and change) your edits and offer my advice, which I hope you will consider. I would also expect that you would check with me when you're unsure of how to proceed or when others are raising concerns, for four months or so, or until I tell you it's no longer necessary.

I'd prefer to bat around the Oden article a little more in your sandbox, but it's your choice.

I think that these terms will let you gain some good experience in article-building in uncontroversial areas, which is what we all want. Any and all of the above are of course subject to the judgment of the unblocking and any other reviewing admins. Franamax (talk) 13:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Franamax, I agree and will consult with you if I feel there is a problem. Having arguments in public space is counterproductive and waste of time. I would like to venture out and make small edits from time to time. If I will feel an article maybe controversial, I will consult with you before attempting to edit it. No edit wars! Igor Berger (talk) 13:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Hummus article dispute

My apology for creating a bit of a mess, but this was not my intention what so ever. I came to the article in good faith after noticing an extreme change in the article's direction. I have edited the article many times in the past, and was taken by surprise by all the negativity that I received. Will explain more later as I put my thoughts together. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 07:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for taking my time, but I had to deal with a few pressing issues. As I said before, I came to the article in good faith, and not to create disturbance. I placed the tags, because I believed the article is not NPOV, and I still believe it is not. We just do not know who has invented Hummus and we should not assign a specific period of history to one person or another for creation of the dish! Furthermore, I feel I was attacked by many editors when I came to have a discussion about my POV. Also, I feel discrimination by being forced off the article by Admin Gwen. I, as well as any other editor has a right to edit this article. Igor Berger (talk) 00:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I am going to talk to admin User talk:Humus sapiens about a new article Free Gilad Shalit Igor Berger (talk) 19:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Igor, I've read the post you made on your blog. I find it very difficult to believe your assertion that you came to the Hummus article in good faith. Your comments indicate that you see a single word in that article as part of a campaign to destroy the nation of Israel. You need to extend AGF to other people if you wish the same courtesy and you haven't done that at all, instead you've pulled on the mantle of persecution. Further, you're canvassing off-site for editors to support your own POV - that's a no-no and just might get you blocked again all by itself.

And now you're continuing in the same vein by advocating for an article on Gilad Shalit, presumably in addition to our existing article on Gilad Shalit? I'd really very strongly encourage you to stick to what you assured me and many others was your purpose in asking for an unblock: to make small article edits and do some wiki-gnoming. You haven't really done any of that. Did you think the edits to the Oden article were the only test, and then you would be free to do whatever you wanted? You were wrong. If someone were to ask me if you have lived up the terms of your unblock, I would say no, not at all. Please dial it back and try to just improve the encyclopedia. I seriously doubt you will get any more chances if/when you get blocked again. Franamax (talk) 21:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Writing a satire piece on my personal blog that is my right, as many other editors do, including User Durova. I did not name any editors on my blog, so I did not violated any Wikipedia policy about off wiki stalking. I also did not ask any editors off Wikipedia to edit article Hummus. I do not see what is the problem? Why is my blog always being brought to Wikipedia? Editors even scrape my blog by bringing the total article to the project talk page. like was done with article Hummus talk page. I did not give permission for my content word per word to be used on Wikipedia. And yes, I am wiki-gnoming. I tried to edit article Hummus but was chased away from the article. I came to an Israeli editor to ask his opinion about an Israeli issue article. Is there something wrong with this? Is it because I am a Israeli that I am being chased away from Jewish and Israeli related articles? I am confused here? I am trying to assume good faith, but please help me out here! Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 21:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Franamax, I have checked the Gilad Shalit article and will take a look how I can integrate the "Free Gilad Shalit" Web advocacy movement into the article. There is sufficient verified sources to add the content. Igor Berger (talk) 22:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Your blog is mentioned on-wiki because it gives an indication of your state-of-mind - that is one of the purposes of blogging, to give insight to the thoughts of an individual. It's interesting that you would now claim that it is a satire piece, I thought it was a pretty hilarious read myself. However, looking at the tags, I don't see "satire" or "humour" or "farce" listed. You respond to the commenters at your blog in perfect seriousness. If you are truly engaged in satire, you better make it a little more clear.

And yes you did ask people to edit Wikipedia: "I implore all the righteous God loving Jewish and Christian people to come to Wikipedia and fight to defend Is" and "Please visit the article Hummus to start your defense of Israel and the Jewish people".

As far as giving permission to people to "reuse" your content, it's perfectly legitimate to quote your words from another site, only enough of your copyrighted content is used to illustrate an essential point. It falls completely within our non-free guideline. You yourself have added quotes from blogs, into an article no less. Why do you get special treatment?

And it is not at all because you're Israeli that you are being "chased away". We have many Israeli contributors, both Jewish, Muslim and Christian who edit well here. The problem is that you are bringing a very one-sided POV to your editing in a very contentious area of Wikipedia. Many many editors have arrived at these articles convinced that they are in possession of the one truth, so many so that the Arbitration Committee established a set of remedies, which you should read about at WP:ARBPIA. Gwen quite rightly page-banned you as a discretionary remedy under that case. Put quite simply, you were causing more problems than solutions. There is no patience anymore for people fumbling around to find the best way to edit on such contentious topics. And I'll remind you that it's all totally your own fault, you could have politely begun discussion at the talk page, instead you chose an aggressive approach. Your own approach to editing is the problem, and that is what needs to change.

I'll repeat, it would really be best if you avoided controversial areas for, well, quite a long time, until you have gotten more skilled at discussion and resolving conflicts. You could at least try to implement my recommendations for the Oden article, at least fix your incorrect wikilink. Franamax (talk) 22:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I will take a look at Article Oden wikie links. I did not realize there is a mistake. I am glad you enjoyed my satire piece. But as with every comedy there is a grain of truth! I am not going back to article Hummus, not for quite sometime, anyway! I do not think it is editable - it is a war zone! Wikipedia mirrors society and amplifies it. Would you not consider this as ad hominem? "Unbelievable.. the nerve of these people. The Israelis have taken over every single Arab food and culture article and claimed it as theirs, Israeli sections are longer then Arabs ones." --Supreme Deliciousness User talk:Supreme Deliciousness[4]. I did not realize how sensitive and polarized Wikipedia has become. Before I was editors edit warring about tags, which I did not do. But only placed it on the article. In retrospect, know what I know now, I would not place the tags. But the article is still biased and not NPOV! So how can you even recommend a change on the article's talk page! Has Wikipedia become "their articles" and "our articles" as User Supreme Deliciousness clearly states? Igor Berger (talk) 22:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Oh, and yes, one word is important especially if it changes the whole meaning of the article. Levant is NPOV, Levant Arab is POV. I mean how would Spaniards feel if we were to change from Columbus discovering America, to Toyotomi discovering America? I wanted to preserve NPOV on article Hummus, as Gwen tried to do for yers. But here her edit confused me as double talk[5] She reverse an editor back to Levant, stating in edit summury it is Lavant not Levant Arab. And then she makes it Levant Arab herself. Enigma Igor Berger (talk) 23:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

After e/c. Just drop the whole Hummus article bit. Just drop it. Franamax (talk) 23:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• You bloody well did know there were problems with your proposed edits to the Oden article, I indicated them clearly at your Sandbox. I'm left to conclude that you read the first few comments I put there and decided to ignore the rest. As I commented earlier, you have a choice to be a conscientious editor who reads and responds to comments or a careless and sloppy one. I can only try to help you with that, if you choose to ignore me, you can still edit, but you run a far greater risk of having your edits reverted as being sloppy and careless edits.
• No I did not "enjoy" your "satire" piece - because I do not believe it was satire.
• For now, and for quite some time, don't worry about other people's edits, just worry about your own edits. It's pointless to point at what other people do as an excuse for your own actions. That's not how a wiki works. Concentrate on making your own editing style perfect. Represent other people's POV too, not just your own "side". Be calm and unconfrontational, especially in I-P areas, if editors are using ad hominems, you can be sure that someone else will be watching. You are not the front line in a war for truth.
• Yes of course you are not going back to the Hummus article - not ever. You are banned from it. Maybe at some point in the future Gwen will lift the ban, but you have a whole lot of improvement to do before that happens.
• And no, en:wiki is not a war zone. It is you who is taking the view that if there is disagreement, and since you must always be right, there must be a war. It is within your power to drop that attitude and work towards peaceful editing, which includes repsecting both sides in a conflict. It's your choice. Blog posts such as the one you recently made only show the choice you've made. Franamax (talk) 23:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Truth be told Igor, I think you're trying to make en.Wikipedia a war zone and you are headed for a swift reblock. As for enigmas, there is no enigma, I was fixing my own mistake after being told about it, a mistake which I'd made in haste whilst cleaning up something else (mind, I was in such a hurry I took their word for it about the source, which I questioned and got an answer on further down in the thread, I'd also checked the wrong source, so there's no enigma there, either). As the article shows, reliable sources strongly characterize the dish as Levantine Arab. As for Christoffa Corombo, he didn't "discover" America and so far as I know, it's been many decades since any reliable source has asserted he did. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Gwen thank you for explaining your edit to me. I was confused. I tried to look up the book but it is not in Google books, so I was completely lost. Is there this book? If there is, do you have a link to the page were it says Levant Arab? I would like to see just for my reference. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 23:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

If you had read the whole thread you'd have known the answer to that question. You should drop the topic of Hummus on en.Wikipedia now. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

You could try asking at the resource exchange or you could check at your local library. They often have inter-library loans where you can get anything you want. We encourage independent research in reliable sources. Franamax (talk) 23:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

With regards to our email conversation which you said you are sharing with Gwen, I understand what you saying. Do I agree with your interpretation of things, not exactly, but being I am not given a choice, I must adhere to your request. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 00:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, I initiated one email which I explicitly indicated that I would copy to Gwen. Beyond that, no-one is privy to your response or any other email exchanges we might have. I will never pass on any of your private communication without your permission. Never. Gwen received only a copy of my own private communication to you, bcc'ed for her confidentiality (I now realize that I may have compromised your own email address in the process). She will not see any of your replies unless you choose to cc: them yourself. No-one is silently listening in, that's important and it won't happen! Franamax (talk) 01:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Only so y'all know, the same email address for Igor was already in my email client, from last March (I checked). Gwen Gale (talk) 10:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Gilad Shalit Tweet4Shalit

Franamax, I am going to be adding Tweet4Shalit section on article Gilad Shalit. The text is verifiable per Wikipedia reliable sources. If you or anyone else would like to make changes to the text, please do it on the article, with a note on the talk page why you made the change. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 03:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm that's funny, I thought we just agreed that you would sandbox your edits in I-P areas and ask me first. You've been reverted, I'd suggest you leave it that way. Franamax (talk) 03:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Is there something wrong with the edit Gilad_Shalit Tweet4Shalit[6]? Igor Berger (talk) 04:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there are two things wrong. It is pure advocacy, which violates any number of our policies and guidelines; and we just agreed that you would first sandbox your IP edits, so that I could try to help you avoid exactly that sort of problem. In a sandbox, we could look at each sentence. In mainspace, you just get reverted. Franamax (talk) 04:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

So what are the violations per Wikipedia of an advocacy campaign that has reliable references? Igor Berger (talk) 04:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not advocating for Gilad Shalit on Wikipedia, but with my edit attempted too document the Tweet4Shalit campaign, with verifiable sources.. Igor Berger (talk) 05:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

(after e/c) The non-neutral way in which you phrased it? The complete disregard for our agreement to use the sandbox, which follows from the whole reason you were unblocked? I'm not going to discuss it post facto. If there's an IP-related edit you're thinking of, put it in a sandbox and ask me for an opinion. I might ask others for an opinion too. Gilad Shalit is off the table though. When you actually want to work in a cooperative process rather than just testing the limits, we might be able to accomplish something. Franamax (talk) 05:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Would it be ok if I join the editors on Gilad Shalit talk page? I promise not to get into any edit waring. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 11:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Igor, I think that is a hugely bad idea. If you have particular ideas, put them in a sandbox, as we'd previously agreed, and we can discuss them there. You have made absolutely zero progress since we last had any communication, so no, please don't even think about it. Nothing has changed since your last warning by an admin. Tell me first what you want to say - please. Franamax (talk) 12:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I keep hearing "No" and "No" when it comes to editing Israeli articles, even though I have no history of editing them. Why not work with me on the Gilad Shalit edit? If you feel the edit I tried to do needs some work, please help me. Igor Berger (talk) 13:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

• Well, those "no"'s you hear from me are primarily meant to help keep you from getting blocked again. The P-I area is one of the very most divisive on en:wiki, and you've shown no sign at all of being able to edit successfully in that area. I'm certainly not going to go along with a blanket request to just go and "join the editors".
• It's curious that you say you have no history of editing "Israeli" articles, when just a month ago you were stating that you had edited an "Israeli" article many times before.
• And you only keep hearing "no" because you want to. I've several times asked you to discuss your proposed edits with me first, as have others. I've asked you to use a sandbox. It's you who has refused to work within that process. Even just above, I didn't say no, I asked you to tell me first what you want to say. I realize that you chafe under that restriction, but those were the terms of your unblock.
• As far as your specific edit to Gilad Shalit, no, I'm not inclined to "work with you" on it - because you already refused to work with me on it. You had specifically agreed to sandbox your P-I edits for discussion, then you specifically went ahead and made a direct edit. Why should I reward your limit-testing? If you showed even the slightest sign of wanting to cooperate, you might find me a little more agreeable.
• And in general, your extreme focus on "Israeli" edits is at odds with your stated intentions for a return, which was gnoming; and really just not healthy in terms of becoming a respected editor here. But it's good to see you using your new camera and doing a bit of work on Osaka. Let's see how that goes for now. I know you don't believe me, but honest, the first thing you need is just the general joy of improving articles, good knowledge of how to actually implement policy rather than just quoting it, and a happiness in collaborating with other people - especially those who start out opposing you. Take it slow and get some wide experience. Even if it takes you a year, trust me, Israel and all those disputed articles will still be there. ;) All that will have changed is that you will be much better prepared to work in such challenging areas. Franamax (talk) 23:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I never said I have edited Israeli articles many times. I said I edited Hummus article many times before. I do not have a long history editing Israeli article. Maybe 10 edits including Hummus article. I am not interested in editing Israeli articles primarily. I just find something to add an do it. You guys blowing out of proportion my interest in Israeli articles. If you are American and read American articles and find something to add, are you not going to add it? SAD Igor Berger (talk) 00:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

And I am doing Gnome work. I find something new and add it. You guys are the ones who are paranoid! ;-( Igor Berger (talk) 00:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

So you have no personal insight at all into the ideas I'm trying to get across? You don't think that your behaviour should change to the slightest degree? And you choose to address me as "SAD" and "paranoid", and one of "You guys" even though I acted totally independently when I asked for your unblock? Is there anything in your last two posts above that you would choose to reword? Franamax (talk) 00:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I kow you and other editors care and do not want me to get in trouble. But I have not done anything bad when it comes to editing Israeli articles. I tried to do a few edits and was told to stay away. Have you ever wonder why the same editor reported me to you twice? I never had a relationship with him/her on Wikipedia before. Igor Berger (talk) 01:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Well in those few edits that you did, your contributions were indeed judged bad, i.e. unhelpful. That's why you were told to stay away. In the case of the Hummus article, you waded into an area which had been discussed in excruciating detail in Dec 2008 and a very painful compromise was apparently reached. You waded in there blindly with a POV tag and said that you didn't want to rehash old discussions. But that's not how it works, you're expected to have a good grasp of prior discussions and bring something new to the table, such as new sources - especially in articles under WP:ARBPIA. Of course, you don't always have to have read every single discussion in the talk archives - but if you haven't, you should back off at the first sign of opposition, calmly discuss, and take into account the opposing views. You didn't do that, you kept doggedly insisting that you were right. In effect, you restarted an argument that had already been settled and you quite rightly got booted off the page. You need to develop skills with recognizing and achieving consensus. That requires understanding and accomodating other people's views, not just insisting on your own. It also requires skill in knowing when to just drop a subject and walk away.

And in the case of the Gilad Shalit article, just after you'd agreed to sandbox your edits first, you instead went ahead and imported your favorite recent project from your blog and dropped in a piece of pretty naked advocacy into the article, basically a request for people to join the Twitter campaign. So there is misunderstanding of WP:SOAP, WP:N, WP:RS.

And I still need to go back and take a look at your edits to Facebook and clean those up. I mean really, a blog is notable and reliable because it's written by the brother of the owner of the Dallas Mavericks? Give me a break! No, we're still back at the point where you wrote that Oden was first to the North Pole just because I said so. Gwen asked you a month ago if you understand what reliable sources were and you said "sure do" - but you've not shown that since.

So yes, your P-I edits were disruptive. You first need to understand within yourself why your P-I edits were "bad" before you can make any progress. I've several times asked you to discuss your proposals with me in advance, you've ignored those requests and you just continue to complain about it. You are not the innocent victim here. Multiple voices are telling you that you're going the wrong way, I'm offering to help you, but you just want to go ahead and do what you want. Do you see where the problem is here? Franamax (talk) 23:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I never said I am infallible. But for one thing I am not here advocating for anyone. Do I need my edits corrected? Sure, that is what Wikipedia is about. Could I have done a better job at Hummus? In retrospect, probably yes. I did do the Gilad Shalit edit in my Sand Box and notified that I am going to add it to the page. Should I have waited your approval and not be bold? You are my mentor, so yes! Igor Berger (talk) 23:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Reversion to Japanese invasions of Korea (1592–1598)

Igor, I indeed got your emails. Please ask Franamax to help you with that, Franamax can then let me know, if any admin actions are needed. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Gwen. I already forwarded my request to another admin, but maybe it would be best for Franamax to look at it. I will forward my concern to him by email. Igor Berger (talk) 23:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

If you would please, Igor, let the admin know that Franamax will handle it for you when he has time. Please know, we'll not let any worries you have fall between the cracks, so to speak, but it can take a wee bit of time, getting to it. I can tell you, Franamax is keenly set on trying to help you, please, please trust him. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, Gwen, I will let the admin know that Franamax will look into it. I was just concerned about Wikipedia. Igor Berger (talk) 23:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry about Wikipedia, Igor :) Gwen Gale (talk) 23:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey Igor, thanks for letting me know eventually. The edits by the user in question to that article are no huge deal. They are certainly not damaging Wikipedia. Bolding a name and inserting a stub link into an image caption are not malicious actions. If you were seriously concerned, you could have asked the editor in question, rather than reverting them without an edit summary or note on their talk page. I'll have a look at their other contributions. Franamax (talk) 00:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into it. Igor Berger (talk) 00:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

And on review, yeah, looks like an enthusiastic new editor and it's a little hard to figure out what they're trying to do. The solution in these cases is to approach them gently and offer them help, give them a welcome template, educate them on policies and guidelines, put them in contact with a wikiproject that covers their area of interest, and generally try to welcome a potentially valuable new editor. Certainly, knee-jerk reversion without an edit summary or any kind of discussion is not the way to go. That just demoralizes the newbies. And neither am I suggesting at this time that you should be the one to go about welcoming new editors, but that may be something you could grow into eventually, in the distant future. Anyway, no serious threat to the wiki here, nothing you need to worry about, just business as usual on the site anyone can edit! :) Franamax (talk) 00:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

That is the reason I did not put anything in the edit summary and brought it up in an email. I AGF until proven differently. Maybe you can guide the right editor to help him/her. Igor Berger (talk) 00:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

If you have nothing to put in the edit summary, then don't make the edit. Once you understand WP:AGF, you will know that AGF means you leave the edit in place and discuss it with the editor. Maybe you are confusing up WP:BRD, which has the very essential "discuss" component. And neither of AGF or BRD says anything about firing off emails to multiple admins before discussing it with your mentor. I'll just disregard AGF and speculate that you're looking for ways to bypass me altogether. And I'll advise you again to bring your concerns to me first. As Gwen alluded, Wikipedia is not going to collapse without urgent attention to your concern of the moment. Until you can spot really imminent damage, 'tis best that you just relax about it. I mean that in a good way, concentrate for now on areas where you can best be helpful. When you find items of concern to you, just sit back and see what happens over the next few days after the edit you're worried about. Read talk pages and noticeboard pages, don't comment, just sit back and watch how things get dealt with here. And always think about what I always think about: "I am not the sole saviour of English Wikipedia. I was not put on this Earth to bring justice and light to this website. If I am not here anymore, nothing will change." Franamax (talk) 00:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I thought the syntax was negative that is what raised the alarm, but later I learned it was not. I thought it was done to hide the previous edit, like ":" My bad. But the editor does need help. Previously I saw new editors creating problems for 100s of articles without anyone to check them. Just raised my concern. Nothing broken! ;-) Igor Berger (talk) 01:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Muammar al-Gaddafi U.N. visit controversy

There seems to be a need to add some information about Muammar al-Gaddafi U.N. visit controversy as with respect to the Libian leader's support for the recently released bomber of the flight bombing over Lockerbie, Scotland.[7] Igor Berger (talk) 00:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

That's pretty trivial stuff (and thanks for the link to a site that tried to pop up some bizarre window to another site). "Wildes said mansion workers have violated numerous city ordinances" - that doesn't make any sense at all. The Lockerbie bombing and the prior US bombing raid on Qaddafi's home, which killed members of his family, are serious subjects. The worldwide reaction to Megrahi's release on compassionate grounds and his subsequent welcome in Libya is a serious subject. Libya's renunciation of terrorism and WMD and exposure of Khan's international nuclear proliferation network is a serious subject. The very serious possibility that the Lockerbie trial didn't properly address the entirety of the conspiracy to carry out the bombing, and that justice was not properly done, is a serious subject.

But I'm not seeing what you propose to add to these serious subjects. A rather incoherent report that a New Jersey mayor doesn't want Qaddafi to come to "his" town? Is there evidence that Qaddafi had any serious plans to do anything but address the UN? If not, you are talking about an entirely symbolic action. Can you find a better source that describes reactions to Qaddafi's UN visit?

Or put another way, what wording do you propose? Franamax (talk) 01:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course it is not about New Jercy mayor, and sorry for the bad link. There are probably tons of good ones out there. The question about what words to add is very relevant. Why not invite a few other editors to see what we can come up with and add that to the article's talk page? Oh, and get FireFox to block popups! ;-) Igor Berger (talk) 01:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

What is your proposed wording? What RS do you propose to rely on? If you have done research on the subject, you should be able to provide both of these quite easily, so we can discuss them here - right? Franamax (talk) 01:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

New Jersey town outraged over upcoming Gaddafi visit Igor Berger (talk) 01:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

What is your proposed wording? How will you set this one news piece into context in the overall Qaddafi article? Is this news of of major significance? What is the reaction in officialdom to the mayor's objections? Why does any of this matter to readers of our encyclopedia? Franamax (talk) 01:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Muammar al-Gaddafi U.N. visit is creating new controversy about Lebia's involvement in Lockerbie's flight bombing. Residents of a small New Jersey town are up in arms demanding he is not allowed to stay in a planned building complex. The mayor requests a special city ordinance to forbid occupancy of the apartment. Igor Berger (talk) 01:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, where to start? Qaddafi's UN visit is not "creating" the controversy. Qaddafi as a head of state is entitled to visit the UN headquarters for official functions. So is Robert Mugabe. "Up in arms" - do you see how that might be considered WP:OR? Or do you have a RS stating that people are actually carrying guns around specifically because of this? And when you say "residents of a small town", do you mean the 600 orthodox Jewish families referred to in your last link? Did you wish to say "Community leaders" rather than "Residents", to match what the source actually says? "Stay in a planned building complex" and "Occupancy of the apartment" are flatly at odds with the source you've supplied, which mentions a traditional Libyan tent. Who is feeding you this stuff?

And you've completely failed to indicate how you will appropriately set the stage for this particular edit, as in, provide the proper context. I don't see where you would put it in the article. Are you proposing an entire new section?

Also, referring to more than one source before making your proposals would be helpful. Heck, I could pull up at least 20 at a moment's notice. The whole controversy is nothing new to the world. Your desired emphasis on the proposed restriction on residence is - so keep on digging up some backing for your proposed addition. I'm not saying it should be ignored, just that it needs a lot more work. A lot. Remember that you are not just here to represent one "side", you are here to represent an encyclopedia. A 'cyclo must be neutral, representing all views according to weight; and it has to tell a proper story to the reader, so that they understand why any particular item appears where it does. Popping your proposed paragraph in certainly doesn't meet the second of those requirements. Can you try again, and be a little more rigorous and specific about how you think this fits into the article? Franamax (talk) 03:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I am using "up in arms" as a symbolism for "upset" not for "baring arms against the bear". Will work on rewiting it a bit more. Igor Berger (talk) 03:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Muammar al-Gaddafi U.N. visit is creating new controversy about Lebia's involvement in Lockerbie's flight bombing. Community leaders of a small New Jersey town are upset and demanding he is not allowed to stay in a planned building complex. The mayor requested a special city ordinance to forbid occupancy of traditional tent on the grounds around the housing area that is in disrepair. http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local-beat/Jersey-Mayor-55753792.html http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/aug/25/muammar-gaddafi-englewood-new-jersey I would like to start a section U.N. visit controversy. Other editors and I can add aditional claims of controversy. Igor Berger (talk) 03:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

OK then, propose here one single post you wish to make to the Qaddafi talk page as a recommendation for addition to the article. Include your proposed text and sources for the actual article text, and the accompanying talk page text around it to explain why you think it should be included in the article itself. Be concise and reliable in your proposed article text, and be clear in your justification. If you do a good job, I will post it to the Qaddafi talk page myself. If you're sufficiently persuasive, I'll change the article and give you credit as the author. And/or I'll give you the go-ahead to add to the talk page yourself. Keep in mind that when it's a very controversial subject, you need to acknowledge all major views. So given Qaddafi's right to travel to UN headquarters as a head of state, you need to describe why his right of temporary residence is being restricted. So let's see how well you can do with NPOV description. Franamax (talk) 04:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I would like to start a section U.N. 2009 visit controversy. I would like to start by adding traveling restriction paragraph. Editors can add additional claims of controversy.

Muammar al-Gaddafi U.N. visit is creating new controversy about Lebia's involvement in Lockerbie's flight bombing. Community leaders of a small New Jersey town are upset and demanding he is not allowed to stay in a planned building complex. The mayor requested a special city ordinance to forbid occupancy of traditional tent on the grounds around the housing area that is in disrepair. Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) wrote to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton this week, requesting that Gadhafi remain in a six block area around the U.N. As a result, Muammar al-Gaddafi will be able to visit the U/N. assembly gathering, but his visa will be restricted to NYC. http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local-beat/Jersey-Mayor-55753792.html http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/aug/25/muammar-gaddafi-englewood-new-jersey 05:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, if you're so insistent, you get your wish: Talk:Muammar_al-Gaddafi#Upcoming_UN_visit Now let's see what the response to your incredibly lame wording is. Please absoluteley DO NOT edit Talk:Muammar al-Gaddafi or Muammar al-Gaddafi! I'm indulging you by placing your proposed wording out for public comment. Keep your responses here. If you think that the wiki way is to throw out a bunch of words and argue with other editors until it's worded the way you want it - well, maybe, but let's see if you can do it from your mentorship page. Seriously Igor, you need to go just a tiny bit past whatever you think is the minimum standard to edit here. I'll wait a few days to see what other peoples comment is. Please understand that I'm already being disruptive to the encyclopedia myself in seeking to educate you. This isn't going to happen again. Franamax (talk) 05:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for guiding me with the edit and placing in on the article's talk page. I do not intend to fight with anyone but to get a consensus of other editors. Next time I can place it myself and see where things go. This time I will follow your instructions, as you requested of me. Igor Berger (talk) 06:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of proposed edit

In reply to user Wizzzy, this is Gadhafi's first US visit so it does require its own section. And I kept the paragraph as concise as possible. [8] Igor Berger (talk) 07:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh nonsense, do we have separate sections for every notable unAmerican person's first visit to "The Great Satan"? If you were actually setting the context of conflict with the US (from Qaddafi's coup, through the Green Book, to the present) that would be different. As it is, you wish to present one single controversy, devoid of context. Yes, it's news, but what is that news about? Franamax (talk) 07:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I was trying to avoid expanding the section, but you seem to want to bring that question up. Is Libia and Gadhafi a democracy that is claiming it is becoming? Or is it still a terrorist state as it has been since the Lockerbie's bombing? If it did do the self reprehension in form of payment to the victims of Lockerbie's bombing how can it do a 180 and give a hero parade to convicted terrorist who did the bombing? Igor Berger (talk) 08:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Well to continue with your inflammatory wording, let me ask you this: if I dropped a bomb on your house and killed one of your children, would you be a terrorist if you were to seek revenge? Wait, don't answer that. History is what it is. Criminal convictions are what they are. Politics and justice are two different animals. When you seek to apply the label of "terrorist" as an absolute judgement, do so in your own personal beliefs, but don't bring it on-wiki unless you have a whole bunch of reliable sources behind you. You imply that Libya is a terrorist state to this day. History doesn't seem with you there. Got any sources? Franamax (talk) 09:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

You can white wash it as much as you want, but it will still stays dirty. Enough entertainment! Now back to the point. The visit is controversial and deserves a section on its own. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 09:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Somewhat of a paradox. "On May 15, 2006, the United States announced that Libya would be removed from the list after a 45-day wait period.[5] Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice explained that this was due to "...Libya's continued commitment to its renunciation of terrorism," State_Sponsors_of_Terrorism#Libya Back on the list? Well, back to the visit! Igor Berger (talk) 09:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Gadhafi canceled the Engelwood town tent stay. http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/278438 Igor Berger (talk) 09:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Nice! Just when I was thinking about Wizzy's point about tents vs. houses, you bail out on the whole thing, based on a source at a "social news site powered by people just like you". Now, can you put anything together from reliable sources that would comprise even a single sentence in the Qaddafi article? Or has your interest faded? Do you want to update your proposed wording? Do you see why an encyclopedia shouldn't try to report ongoing news? Franamax (talk) 10:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The source is NY times and I did not bail out http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/29/nyregion/29libya.html?_r=1 Igor Berger (talk) 10:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC) The SM site is just a place holder for original source! ;-) Igor Berger (talk) 10:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The cheering, flag-waving welcome that the convicted Lockerbie bomber received in Libya after being released from a life sentence was "highly objectionable," President Barack Obama said Friday. His spokesman, Robert Gibbs, also criticized the bomber's reception as "tremendously offensive," echoing a sense of outrage that senior British leaders also have expressed. http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/08/21/scotland.lockerbie.bomber/index.html#cnnSTCText Igor Berger (talk) 10:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

British Foreign Secretary David Miliband question Libia's behavior in international standings as portrayed to convicted terrorist parade reception. Igor Berger (talk) 11:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

On trips abroad Gadhafi is accustomed to greet visitors in a huge Bedouin tent he brings for the purpose. [9] [10] On his first visit to the USA, he proposed Englewood, New Jersey, cancelled, and Central Park, New York, also cancelled (find a ref). Public opinion was stirred by his public welcome of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi the previous month.

A rough cut. He is a world leader, people are trying to welcome him back in the fold, and it probably is worth a mention. Wizzy…☎ 16:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Wizzy, I have no problem of putting in that he is use to traveling in great style and he wants to come back, but his hero welcome to the convicted terrorist is contradictory to that. Igor Berger (talk) 17:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I said a rough cut - The US public was angered by his public welcome ... ? Wizzy…☎ 17:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course. You do not renounce terrorism and give a welcome parade to a terrorist at the same time. It is like giving to charity and rubbing a bank to get that money back! Igor Berger (talk) 17:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Wizzy, let's write something together that covers all points of the U.N. visit controversy! Igor Berger (talk) 17:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) We can add this! In the bid to set Libiya on to world's stage, Gadhafi use to traveling in his tent surroundings gave up on the idea of pitching a tent in Engelwood New Jercy. After he attracted negative attention to himself by giving a hero welcome parade to convicted Lockerbie bomber terrorist and being scolded by world leaders he chose a less attention gathering accommodation for himself. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/29/nyregion/29libya.html?_r=1 http://www.smh.com.au/world/when-in-rome-gaddafi-will-do-as-the-bedouins-20090610-c3ln.html http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/08/21/scotland.lockerbie.bomber/index.html#cnnSTCText So combine the first part and this second part to make one section U.N. visit controversy. Igor Berger (talk) 19:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

U.N. 2009 visit controversy

Muammar al-Gaddafi U.N. visit has created new controversy about Lebia's involvement in Lockerbie's flight bombing. Community leaders of a small New Jersey town are upset and demanding he is not allowed to stay in a planned building complex. The mayor requested a special city ordinance to forbid occupancy of traditional tent on the grounds around the housing area that is in disrepair. Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) wrote to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton this week, requesting that Gadhafi remain in a six block area around the U.N. As a result, Muammar al-Gaddafi will be able to visit the U/N. assembly gathering, but his visa will be restricted to NYC. http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local-beat/Jersey-Mayor-55753792.html http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/aug/25/muammar-gaddafi-englewood-new-jersey

In the bid to set Libiya on to world's stage, Gadhafi use to traveling in his tent surroundings gave up on the idea of pitching a tent in Engelwood New Jercy. After he attracted negative attention to himself by giving a hero welcome parade to convicted Lockerbie bomber terrorist and being scolded by world leaders he chose a less attention gathering accommodation for himself. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/29/nyregion/29libya.html?_r=1 http://www.smh.com.au/world/when-in-rome-gaddafi-will-do-as-the-bedouins-20090610-c3ln.html http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/08/21/scotland.lockerbie.bomber/index.html#cnnSTCText

Igor Berger (talk) 19:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not going to devote a lot of time to this. In the bid to set Libya on to world's stage - No. That is WP:OR. He always uses his tent. The US public is using it as a point to protest the 'hero welcome parade'. I am not keen on has created new controversy. I prefer something neutral close to my original wording. We are not writing newspaper headlines - we are factually reporting what has happened. Wizzy…☎ 08:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Please rewrite the two paragraph in NPOV, and let me look at it. Igor Berger (talk) 08:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Igor, when aomeone says they are not going to devote a lot of time to your issue, that's a really bad time to ask them to do more work. The way collaboration works is that you examine the objections and devise a response. And you certainly don't type out four letters you happen to know represent a policy that you vaguely understand - at the same time as you try to make someone else suit your objective. Why would Wizzy ever come back here after what you just said? Franamax (talk) 11:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Gaddafi's 2009 welcome to the return of convicted Lockerbie bomber Megrahi, who was released from prison on compassionate grounds, attracted criticism from Western leaders <lots of refs> and has disrupted his first-ever visit to the [[United States]] to attend a UN General Session. Gaddafi often resides in a tent when travelling <Wizzy's refs>, but plans to erect a tent in Central Park and on Libyan government property in Englewood, NJ during Gaddafi's stay at the UN were both cancelled.<refs>

• That's the way I would word it, give or take every single phrase. Pretty hacky grammar. It would be a single paragraph in the Foreign relations section I think. Wizzy, thanks for your opinions on this, and patience also! I liked your first proposal too, but I've tried to word it in a more narrative fashion, and also conveniently left out the content of any refs. ;) But the spots needing ref's can be easily filled in I think. Franamax (talk) 10:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with that, or something close. Less drama :) Wizzy…☎ 13:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Welll you both seem to have all the answers. Why need my input? Do as you like, but without my agreement. 14:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC) resignining my post Igor Berger (talk) 19:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't mean to block your input. What is wrong with the draft above? I just have a problem with over-dramatising the issue - I personally think he should be able to pitch his tent on Libyan govt. property. Wizzy…☎ 19:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Wizzy, that becomes a POV which is an opinion which you need to support with reference. The section needs to be "Controversy" because of who Gaddafi is as a person and his behavior that American people are objecting to. If you can word the text as controversy, I have no problem to agree with it. Igor Berger (talk) 19:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Certainly I would not suggest putting my opinion in the article. I didn't, in my draft. Gaddafi is chock full of controversy. There are a lot more controversial issues than where he pitches his tent. I think, for his wikipedia article, his tent is noteworthy, and some handwaving about where to put it is insignificant. I don't know how mentorship works, this is the first time I have come across it. Sorry. Wizzy…☎ 20:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

(after e/c) Heh. This is Qaddafi, the entire article would need to be headed "Controversy". :) In my proposal, I've tried to be neutral in the wording, we just want to give a description of events, not present any judgements or draw conclusions. Creating a new section in the article as it's currently structured would be giving undue weight to this particular incident. (And note that Wizzy is not proposing that the article itself should say Qaddafi should be able to pitch a tent, they are just recognizing an aspect of international relations here on a discussion page) Franamax (talk) 20:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh and I am not asking for a total drama. Just include some incidents of objections to Gaddafi, as text in the paragraph. Igor Berger (talk) 20:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe including the Obama reprimand quote and the Mayor's words would be more appropriate to the tone of the paragraph? Igor Berger (talk) 20:27, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) Clue me in - what are the quotes ? They could be fine. And, indeed, I am talking about undue weight - thanks for phrasing it correctly. This is just not very important, especially as he has backed down. Wizzy…☎ 20:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Franamax, I know you and Wizzy are trying to be neutral. So am I. Let's try this!

Draft

Main article: Release of Abdelbaset Al Megrahi § U.S._reaction

Gaddafi's 2009 welcome parade to the return of convicted Lockerbie bomber Megrahi, who was released from prison on compassionate grounds, attracted criticism from Western leaders <lots of refs> and has disrupted his first-ever visit to the United States to attend a UN General Session. Gaddafi often resides in a tent when travelling <Wizzy's refs>, but plans to erect a tent in Central Park and on Libyan government property in Englewood, New Jersey during Gaddafi's stay at the UN were both protested by community leaders and subsequently cancelled by Gaddafi.<refs>

Notes:

Gaddafi's 2009 welcome to the return of convicted Lockerbie bomber Megrahi, who was released from prison on compassionate grounds, attracted criticism from Western leaders and has disrupted his first-ever visit to the United States to attend a UN General Session. Gaddafi often resides in a tent when travelling , but plans to erect a tent in Central Park and on Libyan government property in Englewood, New Jersey during Gaddafi's stay at the UN were both protested by community leaders and subsequently cancelled by Gaddafi.

end draft

Can you guys live with my modifications? Igor Berger (talk) 20:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I see no mention of the 'welcome parade' in the article - definitely needs a mention. I am happy with your draft. Wizzy…☎ 20:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, let's do it. Mr. Gaddafi took way too much of our time as is! ;-) Igor Berger (talk) 20:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I would accept more expansion on the 'welcome parade'. And - get all the spelling correct, and wikilinks. Wizzy…☎ 20:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Wizzy, more expansion becomes a distraction! Simple is best! Igor Berger (talk) 20:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it is the worldwide reaction to the welcome that is more encyclopedic. The flap over pitching a tent is just a footnote. But whatever. Franamax (talk) 21:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Franamax, I agree with you! Igor Berger (talk) 21:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm OK with this wording, heck, it's likely to get completely rewritten by others anyway! Igor, can you do the wikilinking to your proposal above and fill in the sources you propose to use? I'm asking you specifically as part of mentorship - so you can get a better grasp of just how bloody hard it is to get things right. ;) The sources you select need to directly address the statements were they are used, and only the one or two highest quality references should be used. I've put in a <references /> tag up there so that footnotes will show up properly. Franamax (talk) 21:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

But actually I'm not able to find any mention of a "parade". Can you help me out with that Igor? Megrahi was greeted at the airport by a large crowd which included Qaddafi's son, and I'm pretty sure Qaddafi himself either met him or said some nice things. But what is the "parade" bit all about? Franamax (talk) 21:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

It needs a mention here. But look at Release of Abdelbaset Al Megrahi. Wizzy…☎ 21:27, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Wizzy, thanks for the link. "Parade" like welcome! I did not want to use the word "circus"! I will do the wiki links! Igor Berger (talk) 21:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Gaddafi's 2009 welcome parade to the return of convicted Lockerbie bomber Megrahi, who was released from prison on compassionate grounds, attracted criticism from Western leaders and has disrupted his first-ever visit to the United States to attend a UN General Session. Gaddafi often resides in a tent when travelling , but plans to erect a tent in Central Park and on Libyan government property in Englewood, NJ during Gaddafi's stay at the UN were both protested by community leaders and subsequently cancelled by Gaddafi.

I need more references about wourld leaders outrage! Igor Berger (talk) 21:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Igor, can you put those ref's up into the "Draft" section above? That way we're all looking at the same proposal. And unless there actually was a parade, we definitely can't say there was (nor use "circus", unless they had lions and elephants :). Franamax (talk) 22:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I found 3 reference links for world condemnation. Would someone like to try to find some? Igor Berger (talk) 22:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

When I asked you put the ref's into the draft section, I actually meant to modify what was in the section, not add a second version, but no big deal. "Parade" definitely has to come out, since it's unsupported. I think your sourcing is adequate as it is. Can you do the necessary wikilinking? In particular, if you do it right, we won't need Wizzy's {{seealso}} to the main article on Megrahi's return, it will just be a nice clean bluelink. We are very close to a version ready to be put into the article. When it's ready, I'll ask you to do the honours... Franamax (talk) 22:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not understand. I did the wikilinking. What do you mean? Igor Berger (talk) 22:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I think my last link did the trick on wikilincking! I think we are done! Igor Berger (talk) 23:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Nooo, wikilinks are internal links that make text turn blue and give links to other articles inside Wikipedia. For instance, you can either type "Englewood, NJ" or you can type "[[Englewood, New Jersey|Englewood, NJ]]", which gives Englewood, NJ. You can learn more about this very fundamental feature of the wiki software at Help:Links#Wikilinks. Franamax (talk) 23:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Done, unless you prefer another wikilink? Igor Berger (talk) 23:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking of a link to this to avoid Wizzy's suggestion of a {{main}} link, which I always think messes things up a bit if it's not right under a section header. But that could be handled by wikilinking "release" to the Release of... article. Let's wait 24 hours for Wizzy to comment, but it all looks good to me now. I may re-edit to use proper {{cite}} templates as mentioned to you privately, but it looks ready to go! Also, do we have agreement that this will be a paragraph at the end of the Foreign relations section, rather than a separately-titled subsection? The arguments against a separate title are at WP:NOTNEWS and WP:UNDUE. Franamax (talk) 00:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed! Igor Berger (talk) 00:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no problems with all this. Wizzy…☎ 06:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok Franamax, just tell me when you are ready and I will add it to the article, at the end of Muammar_al-Gaddafi#External_relations section. Thanks everyone for their contributions, Igor Berger (talk) 12:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Igor, go for it. Franamax gave you the go-ahead further up. Wizzy…☎ 17:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, all done. Igor Berger (talk) 17:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Hamas vs. Hezbollah terrorist organization clasification

Hamas

Hamas is considered a terrorist organization by Canada, the European Union, Israel, Japan, and the United States. Australia and the United Kingdom list the military wing of Hamas, the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, as a terrorist organization.

Hezbollah

Several western countries regard it in whole or in part as a terrorist organization.

Why the descepency for Hezbollah? Should it not as well list the countries that consider Hezbollah a terrorist organization? Igor Berger (talk) 19:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks to me as though the countries are indeed listed farther down in the body text. That level of detail would not be needed for the article lead. Generally, the lead is a short summary of what is in the body of the article, the details are developed in the subsequent sections. I see the ref is badly formatted though, I might try to fix that. Other than that, no the article looks fine to me. Franamax (talk) 05:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I tried to find were are the countries in Hazaballah article that list it as a terrorist organization but could not. IMO per WP:DUE the lead should have some mention of the countries. Can we get another opinion on this? Igor Berger (talk) 05:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Did you actually read the article? They are listed in the section Hezbollah#Designation_as_a_terrorist_organization_or_resistance_movement. The lead states that some governments see Hezbollah as a resistance movement, many have comdemned its actions, some see it as a terrorist group. Why do you wish to emphasize only the latter set? Don't just quote a guideline, explain why it applies in the particular case.

And if you want other opinions, there are hundreds of them in the talk page archives. That's another thing you need to learn, how to read previous discussions instead of thinking that you are the first person to discover a problem. Franamax (talk) 16:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

When I fisrt come to an article, I do it as a reader not as an editor. If as a reader I need to read the whole article to realize where the important part of the topic is described then there is bias. Should I need to read the talk page of the article to confirm there is bias? I do not believe so. Can we wikilink to that section?

Igor, what are you talking about? This is English Wikipedia, all our articles have the same structure: a lead section giving an overview of the article subject, and a series of sections giving the detail. And in between is a TABLE OF CONTENTS, which in this case tells the reader exactly where to look! No, a reader doesn't have to look at the talk page to find the information they are looking for. They do have to make a reasonable effort though. Each reader is looking for different thinga, we can't put them all in the first sentence.

As an editor though, yes, you are expected to read the talk page and especially on articles which have been the subject of much dispute, the archives too. You need to know the history of the article before you attempt to influence its' future - if you want to be credible in complicated topics. Franamax (talk) 05:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Recommended edit

Several western countries regard it in whole or in part as a terrorist organization.

Igor Berger (talk) 19:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I might think this was a reasonable suggestion, except that the way you approached the subject made it so bloody obvious that you want TERRORIST in blinking lights. But maybe it would be an idea. Has it been discussed before on the talk page? When was the last time the wording of that sentence was discussed on the talk page? Which revision of the article history was the first to have the current version of the current lead sentence? Franamax (talk) 05:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I have checked the archive and it was some time when the terrorist statues was discussed and agreed upon. I think the link to the section is very appropriate. It is a reasonable suggestion. Igor Berger (talk) 07:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Can you link to the talk thread where the lead sentence was last discussed please? How long ago was it? Can you link to the revision of the article where the current sentence first appeared worded as it is now? Thanks. Franamax (talk) 21:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Here are a few threads Talk:Hezbollah#terrorist_organisation and Hezbollah terrorist allegations Folllowing the logic of the discussion wikilinking to the terrorist organization section would be appropriate. I can just make the edit and see if somone objects, or we can bring it to the talk page and have a very lengthy discussion. Igor Berger (talk) 22:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Which is the latest thread? Have you read all the threads on the current talk page? Do you know how to search through WP:PAGE history and how to copy a WP:DIFF link? Have you tried it?

As to your last sentence, if you anticipate a lengthy discussion on the talk page, then you certainly shouldn't go ahead and make the edit first. That's a pretty lame tactic, you are trying to force someone else onto the defensive by making them justify a reversion. If it will be controversial, you always discuss it first.

Link the one-and-only last talk thread, and link the diff for the first appearance of the current wording. I keep trying to take you step-by-step through how to make edits, and you keep trying to skip ahead because you think you already know all the steps. Lets do it one step at a time. Franamax (talk) 23:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

(oudent) I was thinking being BOLD, but you want me to go steps by step. Here is the dif Should I propose my edit on the talk page and see if anyone disagrees? I do not believe anyone proposed an edit like this. Though I cannot be sure. I have not read the whole Hazballah terrorist organization discussion, but scimmed the archives. I do not believe it should be controversial, but who am I to say my opinion? Igor Berger (talk) 00:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Being bold is part of what got you banned, and after you were unbanned, being bold was what got you topic-banned from P-I subjects. Maybe it's time to rethink that strategy? WP:BOLD is actually a part of WP:BRD, which is "bold-revert-discuss". WP:BOLD itself is meant primarily for new editors, it's an encouragement for them to disregard the very complex rules here and just try their ideas out. We want new editors to get involved and not be afraid of the many complex systems here. But part of BOLD is either a willingness to discuss your edit reasonably or leave it alone. Igor, you haven't grasped that part of it yet. You use WP:BOLD, then doggedly defend your edit and warn other people against reverting it. BOLD isn't meant for someone who already knows there will be opposition, it's for someone who is unsure if there will be opposition. You've already said that you think that if you suggest it on the talk page, there will be a lot of discussion and controversy. So if you go ahead and do it anyway, you're really tending more towards WP:TROLL. The better way to go, if you think there will be opposition, is to present your valid arguments on the talk page first. That way, no-one will get upset that you may be ignoring previous consensus.

I'm still not sure that you fully read, understand, and respond to the responses made to your own posts, and the things that are asked of you. Sometimes more than one point is made, sometimes more than one response is requested. You've made a hash of it so far just in this one thread. Let me try to make it more clear, using numbers:

1. Please link to the last talk page thread discussing the particular sentence in the lead. Hint: have you actually read the whole talk page?
2. Please provide the diff to the article revision where the current text in the article lead first appears.

I'm asking you for these simple things for a reason. You need these skills to be an editor here. You have to understand what other people are saying. It's no use to just respond to the first thing you see, or whichever is easiest to understand. I'm not asking for anything mysterious, I just asked for two different things in the same post. Bear with me and figure out the answer to those two different questions. If you continue as an editor here, you won't find the same patience from others. Franamax (talk) 01:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry. I do not know how to search for what you asking for! The countries were listed in the lead but they must have been consolidated in the terrorist organization section dif Igor Berger (talk) 01:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I found when Designation as a terrorist organization or resistance movement: section was created here Igor Berger (talk) 01:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually it is even older but it changed name here from Designated as a terrorist organization here Igor Berger (talk) 02:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I went as far as 2006, and it is designated as a terrorist organization in the article As far as the lead sentence and when it was discussed, I do not know how to find it. Igor Berger (talk) 02:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

here is the last talk page discussion acknowledging Hazballah as a terrorist organization! Igor Berger (talk) 02:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

(o/d) OK, lets try reversing the order of my questions then.

• My question #2 was "Please provide the diff to the article revision where the current text in the article lead first appears." - and you say you don't know how to find that:
  • The first and simplest technique is to just step back through the article history, checking the sentence in question. Obviously, "today"'s version has the sentence verbatim. So look back at the next-most-recent version - is the sentence still the same? If yes, then go back to the 2nd-most-recent version and check it too. Is it still the same? Then step back another version, and check that one.
  • You could also try skipping back ten edits in the article history. Is the sentence there identical to the one in the current article? If yes, then skip back ten more. If not, then go one-by-one forwards until you find it.
  • Or for a smart guy like yourself, who has claimed good understanding of sophisticated topics like malware detection, I'd be thinking you could use a binary search method, which would give you the answer within 8 or so tries. In a chaotic environment like en:wiki, I'd estimate that you would need 20 tries to verify the first instance in a vandal- and reversion-proof way. But in the case we're discussing, it's much easier. Just look at the last few months.
  • I'm not asking for heroics here, every other serious editor here is willing to search through article history to find when wording changed. It's important: there is a big difference between wording that has been stable for 2 years and wording that has been stable for 2 hours. Also the time of the change (and the edit summary describing the change) are very important clues to whatever ongoing discussion was happening.
• And my question #1 was "Please link to the last talk page thread discussing the particular sentence in the lead." - Sigh, you didn't even try that on this last go-round. Neither of the link nor my very carefully underlined hint of last. Are you sure that youi aren't missing anything? ('Nother hint: finding the first date of the current text in the article might help you find the latest talk thread)

I can't give you the answers Igor, I can only try to help you find the methods to find answers on your own. I'm not trying to confound you with my questions here or be mystical or anything. I'm just trying to break you of the habit of assuring other people that you already understand everything, by giving you some pretty simple and direct challenges.

You've made a major step by telling me that you don't understand what I'm asking for and/or understand but don't know how to deliver what I want, and even better, you kept on looking. That's very encouraging.

So please read carefully over my last post, and over this entire thread. Ask yourself if you've been missing anything. Tell me where you think you haven't understood or lacked the wiki-knowledge to do what I've been asking for. That's the only way I can really help you. If you tell me straight out what you don't understand, I'll do everything I can in that area. (And we haven't even gotten close to talking about your actual proposed edit, but you should trust me that I'm not just trying to humiliate you, I have an idea on the right way to propose it) Franamax (talk) 04:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I still have no idea how I should do the biranary search, and where to look? Google? What are you refering too? Use the Wiki search box! Please explain! Also last edit on talk page regarding the terror organization? I thought I did it. You have something else show me! Igor Berger (talk) 04:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I found the edit referring to bellow terrorist organization! I wounder if there was a consensus for the edit? Will check talk page! Igor Berger (talk) 04:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I found the talk on the talk page. But there was no real consensus for the edit. Should I revert them back or wikilink building on the edit? Igor Berger (talk) 04:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I've erased my previous laborious repsonse crafted in the edit box to say:

• Igorberger, hahaha, it took you 24 effin' hours to find the second-last thread on the talk page and you're asking me if you should revert an edit made 30 days ago? Sure, go ahead and revert it without comment, with my explicit consent that you be permanently blocked again. Why would you even mention that? Is it blatant vandalism? You have no standing here to be making reverts of other people's good-faith edits.
• And no, since you haven't shown any particular awareness of how recent edits and article talk discussion works, or any awareness of how the article has been developing over time, I don't think you should be editing it directly, even for something as seemingly obvious as a wikilink.
• There is a way to suggest your edit though. Can you guess what it is? Franamax (talk) 05:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Franamax, stop condescending. You are stuck with me, unless you giving up so easy? I will bring up the edit for the wikilink on the talk page and see if someone says something. It would be good to place it in the same section as the other edit! What you think? Igor Berger (talk) 05:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

No Igor, it is you who has been condescending to me, by consistently trying to evade every single thing I've asked of you. I honestly can't find a place where you've actually tried to cooperate with me, you've resisted at every step. Is it so awful of me to ask to you read the second last thread on an article talk page? Is it so terrible that I would give you so many clues that the thread was there, without actually telling you?

How many ways can I tell you that it's always best to bring issues up on the talk page first? It's what I've been trying to tell you all along. No, I'm not being condescending now; after you've introduced the word, no, I'm being sarcastic.

What I was trying to get at all along was: there is a recent discussion on the issue. Do you have a proposed wording to post into that section of the talk page, proposing the edit, recognizing the previous discussions, and presenting reasons for and against wikilinking the term? Write your text here. Provide some balance in your proposal. Franamax (talk) 06:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Franamax, I know you tried to hint to the text edit, but I was not sure of your hint. I thought I had to search the whole article history. I did not realize it was a recent edit. Please try straight talk next time instead of sarcasm, maybe I will have less problems getting your hints. Igor Berger (talk) 07:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Franamax wasn't being sarcastic in any way. You will not be allowed to attack your mentor rather than doing what your mentor asks you to do, which has all been in good faith and meant to help you back into the fold. If you cannot show you understand how to talk about topics on talk pages, cite back through contribution histories, meaningfully understand and acknowledge policies and then heedfully make edits following consensus, you won't be allowed to edit articles which have even a hint of controversy to them. All such articles are already watched by plenty of experienced editors with many and sundry PoVs, yours own among them. Moreover, given your mentor is the only frazzled thread by which you have any input left at en.Wikipedia, if your mentor gets bored with your never-ending lack of willingness to abide, your indefinite block will be put back. Lastly, this has nothing to do with your PoV. Lots of editors with PoVs very alikened to your own somehow find ways to get along here and edit highly controversial articles without ever getting blocked or even warned. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Gwen, I don;t enjoy having your block hammer on my head all the time. Thanks Igor Berger (talk) 09:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Igor, I have not even once brought up blocking since your mentoring began a month ago, until today. Rather, I've mostly stayed away. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I prefer to work on edits not sarcasm or be reminded of my unlocking policy! Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 09:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Recommended edit - more

I like to recomend to change this sentence "Several western countries regard it in whole or in part as a terrorist organization." to include a wikilink to Hezbollah#Designation_as_a_terrorist_organization_or_resistance_movement. user Cuchullain recommends to look at this section

Several western countries regard it in whole or in part as a terrorist organization.

Please add it to this section of talk page

Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 06:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, now I see where you're going here. I have to apologize, I was thinking you wanted to link to our actual article on terrorist organizationa. Now when I see your proposal in a plain link. I grasp your meaning.

You propose a "forward link", where a term in the lead section is defined by an explanation later in the same article. I have to say, I've never seen anything close to that. Wikipedia doesn't define things by how Wikipedia defines a thing. Wikipedia describes the world, but it never describes its own descriptions - so forward links in an article as definitions seem totally wrong to me.

Wikilinks lead from one article to another article which describes the subject of the bluelink. The articles are separate. If you write "the sky is blue" in any article, it must always link to blue, not to AnyArticle#Blue, unless you are very very clear about it.

Have you ever seen this linking technique being done elsewhere in article space? Anywhere?

I must admit though, that's a brilliant idea. Define terrorism in terms of what the single article defines terrorism as; next you could work on just that minor subsection to clarify it, but the new reader would click on the wikilinked "terrorism" in the lead to find what it means - and the self-same article would define terrorism. Very slick.

I'd prefer to think that you just misunderstand wikilinks - they are not a table of contents (except TOC links, which, umm, are), instead they point to other, related content. Wikipedia does not reference itself.

So, as to your recommendation, easy (altho' verbose) answer. No. Not a good edit, not a good talk page item. Just plain ol' No. But who knows, if other people are actually doing that, maybe it's a trend. We just need some proof. Franamax (talk) 09:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

So where do we go from here? I proposed an edit. You say no. The editor who made the edit removing the references to the subset of countries refers to section bellow. But to find the section bellow one must read the whole article. Is Hezbollah a terrorist organization? Many industrial nation believe so, but Wikipedia questions that. I see this as bias. Unless you recommend a different solution, I would like to bring the article Hezbollah to mediation cabal or request for comment - RfC. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 10:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

There are two different issues here, mechanics (how to navigate an article) and content (what an article should say). I'll address them separately:

• Your proposed edit would insert a "forward link" in the article, such that the reader clicking on terrorist organization in the article lead would not be linked to our article, but would instead be linked forward within the article itself, to a sub-section. I've never seen that technique used, ever, and if I saw such an edit on my watchlist, I would revert it. You are incorrect that the casual reader would have to read the entire article to find the relevant information. They only have to read the Table of Contents to see that there is an entire section devoted to the topic of interest.
• As to the content, when you say "Many industrial nation believe so, but Wikipedia questions that", you miss a few points. Firstly, "nations" do not have "beliefs", nations have governments, which have policies. Secondly, Wikipedia does not take any official stance on whether Hezbollah is or is not a terrorist organization. Wikipedia only reports on the world, it doesn't form an opinion. The fact is that many people and governments think Hezbollah is a terrorist organization, and many people and governments don't, and a lot of people don't care one way or the other but might wish to read up on the matter. Our job is not to say "yes, they're terrorists" or "no, they're a charitable group" - it is only to report the evidence we find in reliable sources. You could read WP:TERRORIST for some perspective. When you say "I see this as bias", well, that's understandable, since you seem to have a strong POV on "Israeli" topics. But I disagree, IMO the article lead right now states the case in a neutral fashion, and lays out the evidence in a separate section which can be easily found. The current version has been discussed and has been stable for a month.

Where to go from here? If the "dispute" is about your suggestion to insert a "forward link" around terrorist organization, I would suggest getting a third opinion from a neutral party, or maybe you could ask at WT:LINK or WT:MOS. That would have nothing to do with suggestions of bias, just with the acceptability of such a link.

If your problem is overall bias in the Hezbollah article, you would need to state your case much more clearly to take it anywhere. I personally don't grasp what you're saying and you haven't given me an actual proposal to take to Talk:Hezbollah yet. MEDCAB or RFC are an option, if you want. I'm not sure whether that would violate your topic ban (it probably would), but go ahead, I'll resign my mentorship at the same time (since it would then be clear that we weren't able to resolve the dispute between ourselves). Franamax (talk) 20:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Resign your mentorship? Interesting! First of all there was nether an official I/P topic ban during my unbanning. For some reason Gwen got upset that I tagged Hummus and I was unofficially told to stay away from I/P articles because of my POV. What POV is that? Blah, Blah! The True colors of Wikipedia! "Anyone can edit Wikipedia as long as you do not disturb the Status Quo!" Igor Berger (talk) 21:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

If either of you or myself find that we're unable to reach agreement, then it only makes sense that the mentorship would cease. You were not told to stay away from PI articles because of your POV, you were told to stay away because your actions were disruptive. Lots of people editing in that area have strong POV's, but the successful ones have learned to restrain themselves and negotiate. Have you ever read our essay on writing for the enemy? I've been hoping for an opportunity to ask you to restate one of your suggestions to word it the way the "other side" would - but haven't found one yet. And as far as I'm concerned, the topic ban is indeed official. You should review the discretionary remedies in WP:ARBPIA. You are indeed topic-banned unless your edits have been approved by myself. If you dispute that, I'd suggest you appeal to the administrators' noticeboard for other opinions. (Note, I recommend WP:AN, not WP:ANI, at AN there is less drama)

When you say "status quo", if you mean that the status quo here is that we all calmly discuss the encyclopedia content, referring to reliable sources, respecting each others' viewpoints, avoiding personalization and insults, working together to construct the best possible open encyclopedia - well, you're absolutely right! But if you mean that "status quo" is the opposite of what you, yourself, personally would say - well, I guess you're right there too. No one person (or group) has the final say on article content. It's a very tough environment, you don't always get the "right" result. You just get what the largest number of people can agree to. Yes, any single person will always find some of the results unsatisfactory. Some people are upset that we don't say straight out that the Moon is not actually a moon, it's actually a planet.

Yes, it's a frustrating process, and it's OK that you let off some steam here. Better here than on an article talk page! Do you want to go any further with this, or just let it drop for now? Franamax (talk) 21:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I wanted to make an edit to Hazabollah that is a POV of millions of people. I am told I cannot even discuss it! So you tell me? Igor Berger (talk) 22:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

There are six billion people on this Earth of ours. It's natural that you would wish to promote the views of those you identify with, but that's not how it works here. Nothing in the article is trying to minimize or ignore Hezbollah's terrorist activities, or explain them away or justify them. We don't make judgements here.

Once again: I've broken down your problem into two separate issues just above. The specific edit you propose is IMO wrong for reasons that have nothing to do with bias. I would revert it on sight, no matter what article I saw it happen in - so there's no way I can justify giving you leave to propose it. I've laid out your options on getting other opinions on whether or not it's technically correct.

And as far as systemic bias, I've given you the option to better lay out your case here. Maybe there's something to bring to T:Hezbollah, maybe there's not. You are asking for something that we don't do, we don't do it for reasons other than "he's a Jew!!" - but when I say no, you scream "bias". I haven't seen your case yet for where the "systemic bias" lies in the article, but I've laid out your options there too.

So again, I understand your frustration that things don't always go the way you want, but you will need to either pick a way to proceed, or let it drop and chalk it up to "that's life". Your choice. Franamax (talk) 22:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

(oudent) I am not trying to push the inner link. I thought that it may be a solution to fix the bias of minimizing the relevency of Hezbollah being a terrorist organization. It is inmportant per WEIGHT to the article, but you seem to disagree with me! Hezbollah is a terrorist organization not human rights organization in the eyes of the western world. So why is it minimized as importance on Wikipedia? Igor Berger (talk) 22:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Both Hezbollah and Hamas have their roots in Islamic charities providing health and education to people living in areas where structured government didn't exist. Indeed, that is much of the basis of their popular support. There was nothing nefarious about that part, in fact, Islam commands people to offer charity. But there is indeed the other side, setting off bombs in restaurants, firing missiles into peaceful towns, truly awful activities which the whole world would condemn. So it's not a clear picture, or at least not as clear as the way you wish it to be phrased. Let me be straightforward - targeting civilians as a form of collective punishment is always wrong. That principle applies both ways though, so you need to be careful in how you justify the actions of "your side".

I really tried hard to get you to actually read the talk page threads which discussed this matter. It seems instead that you just skimmed around for "terrorist" in the thread titles so that you could give me glib answers. (Really Igor, it took me two days to get you to actually look at the second-last thread on the talk page - that tells me that you don't actually read things) If you'd really read and understood the discussions, I would expect that you would have discovered that the "terrorist" designation is not uniform in the "eyes of the western world". Some countries recognize the distinction between the humanitarian and military arms of the organization. It is indeed important that you wish the article weight to focus on your own POV. You are out of step with all the other wiki-editors who wish to present a fair viewpoint, instead you only want to push your own opinions. If you ever present a reasonable argument, I'll back it. But you haven't done that yet, instead you seem to only be saying "it's all wrong". Can you quell your own sense of injustice and propose something workable? Franamax (talk) 23:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I really like to know what is wrong with this edit that was on the article for a long time. Is this not NPOV?

Six western countries, including Israel and the United States, regard it in whole or in part as a terrorist organization.

Igor Berger (talk) 00:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, here's the opportunity! You tell me why it might not be acceptable Igor. Write for the opposition and give your best shot at explaining why it might be a problem. Put yourself in someone else's shoes and give a critique. Franamax (talk) 00:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Ha? Zionist POV! But then the whole NPOV consists of POVs supported by references. Igor Berger (talk) 00:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

So you will just go with the glib response? I was hoping for a little more detail and reasoning. It's unfortunate that you are so afraid of the conclusion that you won't even start down the path. You won't irreparably damage yourself here by actually considering views other than the one you started with. Do you want to try again? I'm not trying to change your mind, I'm trying to help you understand what's in the minds of other people. I think it would help you to try the exercise I've requested. Write a response that is in opposition to your suggestion. Is that impossible for you? Franamax (talk) 00:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry I do not write for the Left, nor do I write for the Right! I write neutrality. Read my blog if you are confused. Igor Berger (talk) 00:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, you have already stated clearly that everything on your blog is satire, i.e. nothing should be taken at its face value there. So obviously it is only meant for entertainment. But there are many other entertainment sites on the internet for me to read, why should I read yours? Are you saying now that it's a serious blog? So you really meant it when you called for editors to influence the content of Wikipedia articles? You've got me all confused here...

Can I conclude here that you have no intention of writing a "counter-response" to your own proposal above? Can we close this thread now and move on? I don't want to sit here and trade barbs, my purpose is only to try to help you become a better Wikipedia editor. Franamax (talk) 01:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I am still looking for a solution to Hezbollah edit, but you are recommending me to drop it. I will bring in to Systematic Bias project and let other editor delve at it. Thank for your help Igor Berger (talk) 01:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

JIDF

I am sorry. I do not understand why you reverted my edit here Is JIDF part of the I/P articles? Igor Berger (talk) 06:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you can get more information here. I'm done with you Igor, sorry I wasn't able to help you more. Franamax (talk) 07:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)