User talk:Mbz1

RETIRED

This user is no longer active on this wiki.

Truly marvellous...

...photographs. Thank you for posting them. Writegeist 20:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Cheers.--Mbz1 20:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Notice of sonnetized reference (following mention in discussion)

FYI: There was a mention of your account name in a discussion here implying perhaps a duty for Proofreader77 to comment on recent activity. See line #3 (italicized) of the collapsed sonnet (at the bottom, not the top of first topic/subtopic. :-) Cheers. -- Proofreader77 19:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I am mentioned in so many places and with such epithets that I hardly care anymore, but your sonnet is nice!

I've just noticed an interesting Signpost (what a pleasant coincidence!) with the name: "Scholar confounded by rules fit for the everyman":

“ In a paywalled article for The Chronicle of Higher Education, Timothy Messer-Kruse, a professor at Bowling Green State university specialising in the history of the American labor movement, detailed his frustrated encounters with Wikipedia's immune system in endeavouring to set perceived inaccuracies in its historical coverage to rights. ”

And with whom professor is frustrated? Your guess is correct :-) In the article named "The 'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia" the professor writes:

"Explain to me, then, how a 'minority' source with facts on its side would ever appear against a wrong 'majority' one?" I asked the Wiki-gatekeeper. He responded, "You're more than welcome to discuss reliable sources here, that's what the talk page is for. However, you might want to have a quick look at Wikipedia's civility policy.", and here's the edit the professor quoted, and here's the very first message the professor got: " :-) No wonder, poor guy got frustrated. He came to Wikipedia to provide his expertise to a very important article, and instead was recommended "to have a look at Wikipedia's policy on sockpuppets." and at Wikipedia's civility policy:-) The question is, if he is due for the site (global) ban too :-) --Mbz1 02:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the link to a timely Signpost article. I'll read it carefully while re-watching Taylor Swift performing her 2-Grammy-award-winning song, which is also timely. :-) (There may be a rule against linking that, so I won't, but I'm sure you can find it. Think about the poetic justice: winning both a song and a performance Grammy for a song inspired by people saying "you can't sing" a previous time she sang on the Grammys. Perfect.) -- Proofreader77 04:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know about the song! Actually I believe there should not be a problem in posting this link. Honestly, if I only listened to the song, I probably would have understood only 20-30%. It is hard for me to understand songs in English (if only people here were able to understand that 90% of my language they do not like comes from my limmited English), but thanks to the article I know what this song is about because the article quotes it: "All you are is mean — and a liar and pathetic and alone in life." Cheers.--Mbz1 05:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

re English not native language: Thanks for that reminder. Like many Americans, it often slips my mind to think about such differences in communication and cultural expectations on an ostensibly English Wikipedia project. (In my case, some native German speakers appear to have a particular dislike for my rhetorical style. :-) As for songs, I can only understand English of course, but enjoy some French songs without understanding a word ... and even one German "country western" song, which I bet Taylor Swift would like:-) de:Christina Stürmer's "Augenblick am Tag." Whatever that means. LoL Cheers. -- Proofreader77 07:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

RFCs

I noticed your question on Nemo bis' talk page, and I'll respond here.

It seems quite well established by recent events that there is very little policy about Meta RFCs, so in principle, you can do an RFC on just about anything, and the worst case seems to be either it's ignored, or possibly closed quickly. However, just as the Gwen Gale Meta-RFC couldn't achieve anything, an RFC about English Arbcom on Meta can't achieve anything either. Both of those topics are for discussion on English Wikipedia itself; that you can't do that because of being excluded doesn't make Meta a viable alternative (in the same way that if you don't have a spoon to eat your soup with, a fishing line is not a viable alternative, even if that's all you have available).

An RFC on the workings of Arbitration Committees in general (on all wikis), and especially the relationship with Meta, would be a more viable RFC topic. It would slightly overlap with point 2 of Requests for comment/Meta-wiki requests for comment on users, which simply says Meta RFCs cannot be on user activities in projects with an active ArbCom. But there is much more on that topic that could be said (as you can see from some of the comments in that RFC). I myself said there ...look to develop some way that allows external review of local dispute resolution. Such review needs to be similarly formal to the local dispute resolution procedures, and needs to link sensibly with them, and with the local wiki community. And reviews should focus on failures of process, with a view to learning something that will help improve the local process. Meta RFCs should aim to supplement, support and improve local dispute resolution, not supplant it.

All in all, you shouldn't be the one to try and pursue this as an RFC, if you want it to achieve anything. I suggest for the moment, if you want to contribute to these general issues eventually being discussed in a productive RFC, that you develop a userspace essay on these general issues. In doing so, you should be aware of Requests for comment/Global requests committee.

cheers, Rd232 (talk) 13:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Rd!

I requested help here.

Cheers.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:53, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Um hum. What part of the Stewards policy made you think that was a sensible thing to do? Rd232 (talk) 16:31, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

this exchange.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:49, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

And you ignored the last sentence of his comment because? Rd232 (talk) 17:15, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Because I have proven beyond any doubt that is exactly the case.

How else one could explain the points I made here? If you are willing to explain to me please why I was blocked in the violation of all blocking policies, why I was refused in a dispute resolution with no explanation why, why they even refused to alter a false statement in the record with no explanation why, and it took tarc (remember tarc?) to change it, why arbcom refuses to publish their email exchange, concerning my situation? There are many more "why". For example on February 5,2011 I sent an important email to WMF. I was blocked on February 7. I have at least some reasons to believe that arbcom was contacted by WMF. --Mbz1 (talk) 17:25, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposal

Thinking further along the lines of our discussion, I added a proposal at [1] regarding the block against you. I don't know whether it would have any beneficial effect for you there; I'm more concerned in getting en.wiki and Meta out of each others' hair. Please, for the love of God, do not be tempted to go into that conversation under an IP or something - if you see something there that you can refute, you could mention it on my talk page here, but I make no promises. Wnt (talk) 18:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)