User talk:Mbz1/a7

SEMI-RETIRED

This user is no longer very active on Wikipedia.

I uploaded more than 100 FP on commons. I uploaded quite a few (never counted) FP on English Wikipedia. I wrote more than 80 DYK articles on English wikipedia like Fata Morgana (mirage) Australite; Sol Hachuel;Sefer ha-Temunah;Operation Diamond;Earth's shadow;Despina Storch;King Philip shipwreck;Ravens of the Tower of London;Buridan's bridge and others. Every year (4 years) since I started contributing to wikipedia at least one of my images got to a final round in POTY competition. Two of my images were selected for Wikimedia Foundation annual report 2008-2009 Wikimedia foundation File:Artcarfest in San Francisco 1.jpg and File:Canada Geese and morning fog.jpg See page 9. On April 1, 2011 (April Fools' Day) 4 articles I wrote La Pelegrina pearl; Clubfoot George;Jafr alien invasion and Sayyida al Hurra were used at the DYK section of the Main page. Together they were viewed 64,900 times. On July 23, 2010 both my image and the article I wrote were displayed on English wikipedia's main page in FP section, and in DYK section. On April 9, 2011 both my image and the article I wrote were displayed on English wikipedia's main page in FP section, and in DYK section On June 4, 2011 both my image and the article I wrote were displayed on English wikipedia's main page in FP section, and in DYK section In 2011 POTY contest Three of my images and one image I edited (more than any other editor) were categories winners. Просто целиться в лампу Трудно в нечто без данных. Яркость - слабость таланта. Серость - сила бездарных. Yevgeny Yevtushenko Сыт я по горло, до подбородка Даже от песен стал уставать, Лечь бы на дно, как подводная лодка, Чтоб не могли запеленговать! Vladimir Vysotsky

• “The rain it raineth on the just
  And also on the unjust fella,
  But chiefly on the just, because
  The unjust steals the just's umbrella”

• w:Charles Bowen

• 'Would you tell me, please, which way I ought to go from here?'
  'That depends a good deal on where you want to get to,' said the Cat.
  'I don't much care where —' said Alice.
  'Then it doesn't matter which way you go,' said the Cat

Spumoni

Spumoni

• 'But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
  'Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: 'we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.'
  'How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
  'You must be,' said the Cat, 'or you wouldn't have come here.'
  

Duel at Lake Merced and Earth's shadow

Hi Mila do you still want me to try to clean this one up? Invertzoo (talk) 22:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for asking, but I did not do anything with this one yet. I've never re-written this one, but I am going to finish up a new article tonight. Would you be willing to help me with this one please? Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:04, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I did my first revision of the new one. I will go over it all again more carefully either tonight or tomorrow morning. I also put in three categories (disabled) but you can decide if they are all applicable or not, I don't really know. I also asked WikiProject Astronomical objects when I should use "Sun" and when I should use "sun" in the article, so don't be surprised if someone else tweaks it a bit. Best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 14:36, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh and I was going to say, do you perhaps also have an image of the Earth's shadow phenomenon taken with a less large telephoto lens? I mean so that one can see more how it looks to the naked eye? If so I think that would be great to add. Best, Invertzoo (talk) 14:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Susan! I will look into this. Best.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Also If you could tell me roughly where your beautiful photo was taken and also if it was taken at sunset? That would be really nice to add to the caption. Invertzoo (talk) 18:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The image was taken at sunrise from Twin Peaks, San Francisco. All the best.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:36, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi again Mila. Please take a look at the article now. I expanded the caption on the image. I also tweak the intro quite a bit because of the fact that on the DYK nom page, the reviewer pointed out that night itself is a direct effect of the shadow of the Earth. Hope the changes I made meet with your approval. Best, Invertzoo (talk) 17:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Wanted to show you this link [1] which has an image of the ES and B of V shown in a wider view of the sky. I am sure you could take something similar but much more beautiful if you are up again that early on a clear day somewhere with a good view. Best, Invertzoo (talk) 19:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

24 hour block

Following discussion on WP:AE you are blocked for 24 hours due to infringing an interaction ban. PhilKnight (talk) 18:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Note to other admins

Feel free to modify this block without consulting me. PhilKnight (talk) 19:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Discussion regarding block

A very, very unfair block by an involved administrator, based on the request filed in the violation of all the conditions of the ban! I did not violate any conditions of the ban! Bad for you,PhilKnight.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

To interpret this as commenting about the other party is really something unheard of, a top of unfairness!--Mbz1 (talk) 18:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Mbz1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

It is 24 hour hours block, and I would not have bothered, if it were not as extremely unfair as it is. I did not violate interaction ban. Please see below.

Decline reason:

minor point:Similar broad interpretations have been used to justify blocking Factomancer.Main point: When are you two going to learn to just leave each other alone? Beeblebrox (talk) 19:10, 25 October 2010 (UTC) refactored to show which point is meant to be emphasized Beeblebrox (talk) 23:53, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

My interaction ban conditions as stated here are "This editing restriction shall include a complete prohibition from comments on the respective user talk pages, filing reports on admin noticeboards, reverting edits on articles, commenting in other venues about the other party, or directly responding to each other's comments on article talk pages. This restriction by itself does not prohibit mutual participation on articles, as long as the editors stay away from each other. The restriction is to be interpreted broadly." No matter how broadly the restriction is interpreted this short note cannot be read as "commenting about other party". It simply cannot.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Alerting another person that Factomancer had complained to an admin? Hard to see why that would not be a violation. You are banned from 'commenting in other venues about the other party.' Though your FYI comment was worded in a vague manner, it is clear who it is referring to. Even though you didn't mention Factomancer himself in your FYI it is obvious what it is about. Anyone who follows the link that you provided will see a comment added by Factomancer. EdJohnston (talk) 19:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox Could you please provide a difference of "a similar" edit that made the user blocked, just anything even close to what I got blocked for. Please do, Beeblebrox, and if you will not be able to provide such difference please reconsider your decline reason. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

@EdJohnston, thanks for your comment on AE and here. I really appreciate them. I've done nothing wrong. I've violated nothing. Your initial assessment was right. My note on the other user page was not to discuss and not to comment about anybody. It simply was a courtesy, informational note for the user, nothing more. --Mbz1 (talk) 19:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Mbz1, can you explain how you came to see that discussion that you linked to?Cptnono (talk) 21:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I was watching Sandstein's talk page.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• That is exactly how I came across it (watched due to a conversation a year ago just never removed). I think the admins should assume good faith (although they don't have to) that you were not actively stalking Facts, then.
• The length of the block should have no bearing on if it was justified or not.
• The notification was actually a good thing to do for someone since there was an ongoing discussion about them that they were not aware of.
• I also challenge Beeblebrox to find an instance where Facts was blocked for something similar. From what I recall, Facts had flat out mentioned you but I could have missed something.Cptnono (talk) 22:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Mbz1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I did not even close violated my interaction ban. Please see my explanations above

Decline reason:

I have no problems with AE's reading of the situation. It's a short block, you should just wait it out. I believe you are still watching Factomancer's behaviour with the intention of noting activity to which you object, and I believe you were trying to skirt through what you thought was a gap in the AE ban through which you could continue your disputes. I don't think for a second that Factomancer is not doing the same thing. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 19:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

It is a short block, but it is an unfair block. Please AGF. I watched Sandstein's talk page, and not anybody behavior. It is just one wrong, wrong block! It should never been posted, and it should be lifted.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Mbz1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I did not violate my interaction ban. I did not watch anybody behavior.I never have. Sandstein's talk page has been on my watch list for quite some time. It is how I found out about the post, and I believed I should have notified a user, whom that post was about. I commented about nobody. Even my blocking admin already says that he does not mind the block to be modified without consulting him. (see above). It is not about the block, it is about making it right. Please see more explanations above.

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I did not violate my interaction ban. I did not watch anybody behavior.I never have. Sandstein's talk page has been on my watch list for quite some time. It is how I found out about the post, and I believed I should have notified a user, whom that post was about. I commented about nobody. Even my blocking admin already says that he does not mind the block to be modified without consulting him. (see above). It is not about the block, it is about making it right. Please see more explanations above. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I did not violate my interaction ban. I did not watch anybody behavior.I never have. Sandstein's talk page has been on my watch list for quite some time. It is how I found out about the post, and I believed I should have notified a user, whom that post was about. I commented about nobody. Even my blocking admin already says that he does not mind the block to be modified without consulting him. (see above). It is not about the block, it is about making it right. Please see more explanations above. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I did not violate my interaction ban. I did not watch anybody behavior.I never have. Sandstein's talk page has been on my watch list for quite some time. It is how I found out about the post, and I believed I should have notified a user, whom that post was about. I commented about nobody. Even my blocking admin already says that he does not mind the block to be modified without consulting him. (see above). It is not about the block, it is about making it right. Please see more explanations above. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

--Mbz1 (talk) 22:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not going to dig through the history of this idiotic interpersonal conflict to find diffs to substantiate what I am saying. I said "similar broad interpretations" not "this exact same circumstance." I believe Sggh has hit the nail on the head with their unblock decline, you two are both trying to find ways to sneak around the edges of this interaction ban, and it is high time you both stopped. More than enough patience has been extended to the both of you. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
  • You see, Beeblebrox, here's the problem. I explained why and how I saw the post at Sandstein's talk page. I explained why it cannot be considered an interaction ban violation. I provided the evidences and the differences. You on the other hand came here to claim that I am trying to "sneak around the edges of this interaction ban" with no differences whatsoever, which means your post as well as your decline reason just an empty words + assumption of bad faith. Nothing personal, of course. I still appreciate your help in ID of my turtle :) But I would like you, and everybody, who reads it, believe that, if I were trying to "sneak around the edges of this interaction ban", I would accepted the punishment with no word in my defense. I would have never wrote an unblock request leave alone 3 unblock requests. I did it only because I am absolutely innocent in what I am accused of.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
    • If you believe that Mbz1 is skirting the ban then there may be no counter to that, Beeblebrox. However, it was incorrect to say that "Similar broad interpretations have been used to justify blocking Factomancer" (unless the FYI was considered referencing Facts) when it looks like you just assumed from the AE. So I have done gone through the block log. Below are the ones related to the interaction ban:

Simple collapsible table

contribs) blocked Factomancer (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ ([Violating imposed interaction ban per this ANI report]) Cptnono's note: appears to be a block for filing a report at ANI 08:38, 14 April 2010 Georgewilliamherbert (talk | contribs) blocked Factomancer (talk | contribs) (autoblock disabled) with an expiry time of 12 hours ‎ (Violated community-imposed interaction bay with User:Mbz1 by mentioning them obliquely at User talk:Sandstein) 05:50, 1 April 2010 Sandstein (talk | contribs) blocked Factomancer (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours ‎ (Violating community-imposed interaction ban with User:Gilisa by making reference to them at WP:ANI) 05:44, 30 March 2010 Sandstein (talk | contribs) blocked Factomancer (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Violating community-imposed interaction ban with User:Mbz1 by partially reverting her at Maimonides Synagogue on 11:09, 29 March 2010)

• • • Cptnono (talk) 23:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh for the love of mike, if this whole conversation is going to be about that one remark then just forget I said it. I've re-edited my decline to make my intent clearer. It's really not the main point at all. These users are not to comment on each other's edits in any way, shape, or form, period. That is the purpose of the ban and the reason for this block. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:53, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Well at least I have learned a new idiom "for the love of mike" whatever it means :)

English is not my first language. So I just went to dictionary for the definition of the word "comment". here it is. May I please ask you under what definition of the word "comment" this edit of mine falls in you opinion, Beeblebrox?. Also have you or anybody else for that matter have noticed that administrator Georgewilliamherbert , who wrote the ban conditions has refused to take any actions on the complain about me on his talk page? It is one very wrong block. I am not just not guilty. I am innocent. --Mbz1 (talk) 00:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Cool down there, fireball :) I don't think anyone was attacking you, Beeblebrox. That one comment was no good so it is cool that you amended it. I think Mbz1 might still have an argument based on AGF but she can handle that without my assistance.Cptnono (talk) 00:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Mbz1, I think we should appeal the community sanctions the were enacted against us about a year ago or so. GWH never explained why I was blocked back then or what policy did I violate although I was not reported by anyone, just participated in an AN/I thread. He never answered our questions on the RfC and he used his admin powers in a very wrong way. Thanks to the sanctions he initiated I was later then blocked for 24 hours by another admin for doing what the ban as it was phrased specifically allowed me to do-GWH, didn't bother to intervene then and to tell the other admin he's wrong, though anyone did tell him so. Instead, GWH-who at least was regularly involved as an admin in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and other regularly involved admins were discussing about making the sanction against us worse. With one admin suggesting that maybe we are not that imprtant to Wikipedia at all. I think we should be bold and taking their sanctions against us to court again, if we believe Wikipedia worth something, we can't agree things keep going this way. --Gilisa (talk) 09:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, if there's no single fair and unafraid administrator to lift an unjust block, let's at least laugh together

Is that an interaction ban violation?

Is that duck sniffing... Well as said before (although it negates the principle) it was only a 24hr block. Facts should be done and any return to the project will result in a qick AE if they continue personal attacks. Regardless of what Facts said, your image work is still some of the best this project has ever seen.Cptnono (talk) 04:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

clearly an interaction ban violation. the duck is telling the first turtle that the second turtle has his head up his ass. the duck and the second turtle are not allowed to comment about each other.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

And clearly the fourth turtle is checking out the hot action.Cptnono (talk) 05:12, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Nava Applebaum

Thank you for the help at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nava Applebaum. The article is now on the front page as a DYK.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)