→blocked: note |
→Your e-mail: new section |
||
Line 591: | Line 591: | ||
* I closed [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Request_concerning_Supreme_Deliciousness this arbitration enforcement request] and agree with the block. It is needed at this time to prevent further disruption. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup> 01:57, 24 December 2010 (UTC) |
* I closed [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Request_concerning_Supreme_Deliciousness this arbitration enforcement request] and agree with the block. It is needed at this time to prevent further disruption. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup> 01:57, 24 December 2010 (UTC) |
||
== Your e-mail == |
|||
In reply to your e-mail, |
|||
:"You are probably the last person I could count on to help me, but I will try. I am not asking you to review my block, but why my talk page access was removed. I only added the template http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Indefinite <br>I believe I am allowed to have such things at my talk page." |
|||
I believe that this issue is moot. The purpose of your talk page is for you to communicate with others with respect to your Wikipedia editing. If you no longer edit Wikipedia, the talk page has no purpose for you. Because you are indefinitely blocked and have said, above, that you do not intend to appeal your block, you have no need to edit your talk page. It is therefore not necessary for me to review whether the removal of your talk page access was correct. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<font style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Sandstein '''</font>]]</span></small> 07:14, 24 December 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 07:14, 24 December 2010
- “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”
- '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
- '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.'
Welcome back!
![]() |
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | |
Welcome back! Also, thanks for the barnstar. I think you deserve one of these too, for this particularly kind and civil conversation with a new user. I came across that conversation in December, from looking at one of the pictures that he had posted, and was happy to see that someone had been civil to him, especially since he seemed to be in a difficult situation! Cheers, CordeliaNaismith (talk) 02:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC) |
How daft of me!
I should have awarded you with this right away.
![]() |
The Photographer's Barnstar | |
I, Pericles, award User:Mbz1 this honorary barnstar in recognition of her most excellent and thoughtful work in touching up File:Arm less man.JPG, drastically improving the visual quality of a valuable historic image used in Parthian Empire and several other articles at Wikipedia. I bow to you madam, and thank you! Pericles of AthensTalk 17:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC) |
Thank you very much!--Mbz1 (talk) 21:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
- You're very welcome! You can keep track of the progress I'm making on my draft here if you like: User:PericlesofAthens/Draft for Parthian Empire. I've yet to add your picture, but it will be placed in an appropriate section, most likely "nobility" or "art and architecture". Cheers buddy.--Pericles of AthensTalk 22:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Well-deserved
![]() |
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
For your many generous donations of gorgeous images (especially those breathtaking photos at User:Mbz1/Mbz1 gallery/Underwater), please accept this as a small token of my appreciation. –xenotalk 19:21, 29 May 2010 (UTC) |
Successful featured picture nomination
![]() |
Your Valued Picture
![]() |
- Thank you for the nomination! I've missed on it.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
DYK for List of Jewish Nobel Prize Winners
Calmer Waters 06:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
DYK for Ronald Levy
Thelmadatter (talk) 23:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Successful featured picture nomination
![]() |
Successful featured picture nomination
![]() |
Successful featured picture nomination
![]() |
![]() |
DYK for Aureole effect
Mifter (talk) 08:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
DYK for Maimonides Synagogue
Materialscientist (talk) 06:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
DYK for Fata Morgana (mirage)
Materialscientist (talk) 18:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- I see this made it onto the all-time most-viewed list. Congratulations! --Avenue (talk) 10:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- Yes it was a very big success as a DYK! Well done, especially on your great images. I was delighted to have been able to work on the text. Invertzoo (talk) 21:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
DYK for Abraham Reuel
Materialscientist (talk) 22:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
DYK for The geological history of Point Lobos
The DYK project (nominate) 06:02, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
DYK for Looming, Towering, Stooping, and Sinking
Materialscientist (talk) 16:03, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
DYK for Jewish pirates
Materialscientist (talk) 08:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
DYK for Bernese Fassnacht (Carnival)
Materialscientist (talk) 16:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
DYK for Majorcan cartographic school
The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
DYK for Legends of the Coco de Mer
The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
DYK for Orchid hunters
The DYK project (nominate) 18:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
DYK for Carrier Pigeon (ship)
Bradjamesbrown (talk) 06:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
DYK for Historically significant lunar eclipses
The DYK project (nominate) 18:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
- You are welcome Mila! Invertzoo (talk) 18:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
DYK for Peacock flounder
— Rlevse • Talk • 12:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
DYK for Underwater camouflage and mimicry
— Rlevse • Talk • 18:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
DYK for RMS Mulheim
— Rlevse • Talk • 06:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
DYK for Australite
— Rlevse • Talk • 06:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
DYK for Max Frauenthal
Materialscientist (talk) 00:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Barnstar
I don't hand Barnstars out very often, in fact, I can't remember the last time I did so. I had promised you one, if Herrengasse 23 became a DYK but, it seems the world and Wikipedia must remain in ignorance. However, you have contributed greatly to my crusade to give recognition to lesser and little known buildings - so here it is and you desearve it:
![]() |
The Content Creativity Barnstar | |
To Mbz1 for his tremendous work and research in bringing Herrengasse 23 to a wider puplic appreciation. Giacomo 18:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC) |
PS: I would like to give Sandstein something similar for the really good photos, but don't think it wise to hand him a sharp pointy object when I am the vicinity. I will thnk on it. Giacomo 18:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
DYK for Herrengasse 23 (Bern)
— Rlevse • Talk • 00:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
DYK for Jacob Barnet affair
Mifter (talk) 12:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
DYK for Sol Hachuel
— Rlevse • Talk • 00:02, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
DYK for Frederick Mayer (the spy)
— Rlevse • Talk • 12:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
DYK for Schloss Reichenbach
— Rlevse • Talk • 00:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
DYK for La Peregrina pearl
— Rlevse • Talk • 06:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
DYK for The Holocaust's Arab Heroes
— Rlevse • Talk • 00:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
DYK for Tub'a Abu Kariba As'ad
The DYK project (nominate) 06:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
DYK for Paul the Octopus
Materialscientist (talk) 12:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
DYK for Sefer ha-Temunah
The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Your image promoted to featured
![]() |
DYK for The Mountain of Israeli-Palestinian Friendship
— Rlevse • Talk • 12:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
DYK for Yoni Jesner and Ahmed Khatib
The DYK project (nominate) 12:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
DYK for Operation Diamond
The DYK project (nominate) 12:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
DYK for Ali Bushnaq, Dudu Yifrah and Micha Yaniv
— Rlevse • Talk • 00:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
DYK for The Grand Design (book)
-- Cirt (talk) 06:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
DYK for Great Comet of 1264
— Rlevse • Talk • 00:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
DYK for Great Comet of 1556
— Rlevse • Talk • 00:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
DYK for Yolande Harmer
— Rlevse • Talk • 18:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
DYK for Jewish pope Andreas
The DYK project (nominate) 06:03, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
DYK for Sara Copia Sullam
— Rlevse • Talk • 06:03, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
DYK for Earth's shadow
— Rlevse • Talk • 18:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Mila, as you probably already know, Earth's shadow got 19.9k views on Oct 26th while it was a DYK! Invertzoo (talk) 13:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I did. Thank you for your great help.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yes but you take the lion's share of the credit for putting together the article with your excellent image, and also most important, thinking of the idea in the first place! I did not even know what these colored bands were until I read the article!
- By the way, when I was at Long Beach, Long Island 2 weeks ago, the same beach where I saw the superior mirage on the horizon a while ago, this time I saw an inferior mirage in the distance below Staten Island, which was on the horizon. I never saw an inferior mirage over the ocean before. I have learned a lot from you, Mila! I did not have my binoculars or a camera with me, but I will try to take them next time, although as I said before, on my regular camera the telephoto function does not give very much magnification at all. Anyway, thanks and good wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 19:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you, Susan! Such comments from such a great person and such a great, respectful editor as you are keeping me going on Wikipedia. I'm looking forward seeing some of your images. Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- You are very welcome Mila. I showed my husband some of your photos yesterday (the ones on your subpage) and he said that they are National Geographic quality. I agree. And by the way, it turns out that Earth's shadow got another 6.3k views on 27th October, so that makes a total of 26,200 views! I will put it on the "over 20,000" list. Invertzoo (talk) 22:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you, Susan!--Mbz1 (talk) 01:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
- You are welcome. And by the way, you now have your name on 4 out of the top 43 most-viewed DYKs so far in WP history. Only User:Materialscientist has as many as you in that list. I have 3, of which 2 of them are thanks to you. Invertzoo (talk) 19:28, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you, Susan!--Mbz1 (talk) 01:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
- You are very welcome Mila. I showed my husband some of your photos yesterday (the ones on your subpage) and he said that they are National Geographic quality. I agree. And by the way, it turns out that Earth's shadow got another 6.3k views on 27th October, so that makes a total of 26,200 views! I will put it on the "over 20,000" list. Invertzoo (talk) 22:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you, Susan! Such comments from such a great person and such a great, respectful editor as you are keeping me going on Wikipedia. I'm looking forward seeing some of your images. Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I did. Thank you for your great help.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- But on a serious note, Susan, most of the articles I started would have never got finished without your generous help, including my favorite Fata Morgana (mirage). I am so lucky I found you!
- Best wishes, and thank you for everything.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:08, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- It is an honor to work with someone who is such a fine photographer, and one who is interested in so many different kinds of subjects! Invertzoo (talk) 16:05, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you!--Mbz1 (talk) 02:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- It is an honor to work with someone who is such a fine photographer, and one who is interested in so many different kinds of subjects! Invertzoo (talk) 16:05, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
DYK for Broderick – Terry duel
-- Cirt (talk) 12:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
DYK for 2004 Iraq churches attacks
Materialscientist (talk) 18:02, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
DYK for King Philip shipwreck
Materialscientist (talk) 18:02, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
DYK for Ravens of the Tower of London
The DYK project (nominate) 12:04, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
blocked
Straight off your interaction ban, you began wantonly hounding that editor and others, again. I have blocked you for one week, owing to harassment and disruption. If, when this block lifts, you carry on with this behaviour, your next block will be much longer. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:32, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0c/Appointment_red.svg/48px-Appointment_red.svg.png)
Mbz1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I was blocked as a result of of this this thread The block reason is personal attacks, harassment and disruption. There was neither attack, nor harassment nor disruption. As you see the blocking admin has never provided any differences of any of my "crimes" . I was hounding nobody. I saw this post about user:Daedalus969 in my watch list and added my input to an/i. How it is hounding? I have no interaction ban with that user.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:38, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You know well by now that editors are supposed to be notified when they're discussed on ANI, so running around claiming "canvassing" is disingenuous at best. That frivolous SPI was clearly harassment, and you were properly blocked. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:28, 23 December 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.
- See the ANI thread linked above along with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Daedalus969, which has been closed by another admin as a bad faith CU report by Mbz1. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:48, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
So you blocked me for a week for a bad faith report! It actually was not a bad faith report and it was not intended as a harassment. I really found this strange that a user will react the way they did on AN/I report that should have never been filed in the first place. I do not find it strange anymore, if even admin reacted the way she did. BTW may I please ask you to review what is wikihounding: Wiki-hounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia. (highlighted by me) Now, when you have learned what is wikihounding please provide some examples of me ever wikihounding anybody. Please also provide examples of PA and disruption that were worth blocking for a weak or even for an hour for that matter.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, the ANI thread speaks for itself. Meanwhile Prodego warned you to stay away from that editor earlier today. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
- I am sorry, but I cannot find any differences of me wikihounding or personally attacking somebody or anybody. Could you please be so kind and provide the exact differences of me wikihounding and personal attacking somebody. Please just take them from that very AN/I report and post them here. --Mbz1 (talk) 19:10, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
- Honestly this AN/I report and the block look more and more as witch hunt, and witch hunt it is.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
- I am sorry, but I cannot find any differences of me wikihounding or personally attacking somebody or anybody. Could you please be so kind and provide the exact differences of me wikihounding and personal attacking somebody. Please just take them from that very AN/I report and post them here. --Mbz1 (talk) 19:10, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, the ANI thread speaks for itself. Meanwhile Prodego warned you to stay away from that editor earlier today. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
- See the ANI thread which you linked to in your unblock request, along with this hollow arb enforcement request and the meaningless CU report I linked to above. If you don't understand what you've done, there may be a need to lengthen your block. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:15, 23 December
2010 (UTC)
- And who decided that it was "this hollow arb enforcement request" You did? Let me see. On 17:35, 23 December 2010 that AE was first mentioned on AN/I. On 18:28, 23 December 2010 you blocked me after on 18:21, 23 December 2010 you made this edit ? So when you read the AE report and came to conclusion it is hollow? I do not believe you ever read it. I still see no evidences of wikihounding and or personal attacks. I do not believe you should keep your administrative tools.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
(ec) A few examples, just from your last 100 Contributions, which were mentioned in the ANI:
- this: "user:Daedalus969 harassed and wikihounded me all over wikipedia until an interaction ban (that I enjoyed very much) was issued between the user and me. Too bad it has expired. That user user:Daedalus969 will never drop the stick, and he wants to be an administrator!"
- this: "Even gatoclass never claimed anything about coatracks, but you right I did learn something, like how unpleasant some users, who hardly wrote a few articles themselves could be."
- this: "Rant, rant, rant. The users as you are only good to drive content contributes away"
- this edit summary: "get out of my section, even look of your signatue makes me sick"
Your Contributions page was linked from the very top of the ANI page, and as a result several different people requested that you be reminded of WP:BATTLEGROUND with a block. betsythedevine (talk) 19:32, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
- Mbz1, given your posts in the aftermath of this block, I think the likelihood of further harassment and disruption from you is much longer than one week and hence, I've lengthened the block to indefinite. You can appeal this block and its lenghtening by posting {{unblock|why I should be unblocked}} below. However, before posting another unblock request, I would think you should carefully read Wikipedia:Guide_to_appealing_blocks. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:38, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
- I could have responded and explained every difference that betsythedevine provided above, but I will not bother. There's no use. I am guilty of nothing.
- Gwen Gale, don't worry. I am not going to post unblock request or/and appeal the block. I have done nothing to be blocked for, and you still did not present any differences to support the claim of wikihounding and personal attacks because the above differences are not personal attacks .
- I have never done anything in purpose to harass and/or wikihound anybody. I was wikihounded and harass way too much myself to do this to anybody. This SPI I filed could have been filed as a mistake, in a hurry, but it was not filed in bad faith and it was not filed to harass anybody. I myself was the subject of 2 SPI with much less (practically no evidences) They both were approved, were run, came back as "unrelated" and nobody ever got even warn over any of them leave alone blocked. --Mbz1 (talk) 20:24, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
- This block isn't about guilt Mbz1, it's about things you have done which stalled building the encyclopedia by wasting the time of volunteer editors on this privately owned website, with all its flaws. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:31, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Since you've edit warred over a misleading template at the top of this page, I have locked you out of your talk page. You can ask to be unblocked by email, through WP:BASC. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:01, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
- Comment. This appears to be a flawed block. Ab initio, the blocking admin failed to supply any evidence to support the charge of "wantonly hounding that editor and others, again". The denial of the unblock request, which stood on grounds that differed from the original block, was similarly flawed. It cited "editors are supposed to be notified when they're discussed on ANI". That is true. Failure to do so happens all the time, for all sorts of reasons, and is on a regular basis addressed by other editors indicating it should be done or doing it themselves -- this is not by any means a blockable offense, and the assertion that it is suggest a wholly unequal application of the rules. Running around claiming "canvassing" where it is arguably disingenuous has happened as well in other areas without blocks being applied -- if Sarek really believes this is a blockable offense, I would like to know so I can direct him to editors who are doing precisely that, and ask him to block them forthwith -- nobody else has done so. Sarek's view that the SPI was frivolous is Sarek's point of view; that is not "clearly harassment". The diffs that Betsy provides are frivolous, and clearly not blockable offenses (really -- does she think it is a blockable offense to say "Rant, rant, rant. The users as you are only good to drive content contributes away" -- this only demonstrates how far she is reaching to try to make a silk purse out of a cow's ear). Gwen's extension of her own block to indef for what she perceives as "likelyhood [sic] of harassment" is as flawed as the spelling -- I see no basis for an extension of any sort, let alone an extension to indef, and find it odd that the same involved sysop is reacting to criticisms of her actions by engaging in further questionable actions.
I think we need some non-involved sysops who have not been formerly involved with this or with the blocked editor (and who are not wikifriends of the blockers) to review this. --Epeefleche (talk) 22:22, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
- I have never (as far as I can remember) interacted with this editor, and am not "wikifriends" of the blocking editor (sorry Gwen, but you know what I mean). I have looked at the evidence here and can see nothing that says this block is incorrect. The user's block log is effectively the best evidence here - at some point we have to say "seriously, we are all volunteers here, and you're wasting our time - go and waste someone else's". Black Kite (t) (c) 22:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
- Hi again BK. Thanks. Can you be more specific as to what in the above precisely warrants an indef block. Including, in draconian manner, a block on the user's own talk page? This seems quite out of the ordinary under these specific circumstances. I've addressed the circumstances with specificity above. Among other things, if you believe that running around claiming "canvassing" where it is arguably disingenuous is a blockable offense, I would like to know so I can direct you to editors who are doing precisely that, and ask you to block them forthwith. Uneven application of even-handed rules is, I know, something that you seek to avoid assiduously.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:56, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
- Mbz seems to have gone out of his way to cause problems, agreed with my suggestion he avoid interacting with users with whom he has had problems in the past, and then did it again. I can't see any other explanation except that his only intention is to cause the maximal amount of disruption he can. Thus, I support an indefinite block as well, and I am uninvolved. Prodego talk 01:02, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, this is pretty much what I see as well. This is the sort of behaviour one expects from a SPA or new editor, not an experienced one. When an experienced editor apparently deliberately does exactly what they've been asked not to do, it is difficult to assume good faith. Having said that, indefinite does not mean infinite - if Mbz1 can convince the community that they will cease their disruptive behaviour and stick to any interaction/topic ban that is organised, then I don't see any reason why they should not be unblocked, with the caveat that any further repeat of the behaviour will mean an actual indefinite ban. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:06, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
WRT the diffs I provided -- Mbz1 had repeatedly asked for diffs, claiming she made no attacks on anyone. I never suggested that any single diff was a blockable offense -- anybody can have a bad day. But what is striking in this case is the number of different kinds of examples of WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, including but not limited to her offensive personal remarks to many different editors just in the top 100 edits of her contribution list, plus filing a nuisance SPI, plus accusing editors who were notifying others of their mention on an ANI of canvassing, plus starting an edit war on this talk page which is what led to Mbz1's being blocked from editing it. Not to mention wikilawyering about the exact wording of WP:WIKIHOUND because the word "hounding" was used in its conventional English meaning by the blocking admin. Instead of learning from the one-week block, Mbz1 continued to give more evidence that she did not feel she had to change her behavior in any way. betsythedevine (talk) 00:36, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
- I closed this arbitration enforcement request and agree with the block. It is needed at this time to prevent further disruption. Jehochman Talk 01:57, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Your e-mail
In reply to your e-mail,
- "You are probably the last person I could count on to help me, but I will try. I am not asking you to review my block, but why my talk page access was removed. I only added the template http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Indefinite
I believe I am allowed to have such things at my talk page."
I believe that this issue is moot. The purpose of your talk page is for you to communicate with others with respect to your Wikipedia editing. If you no longer edit Wikipedia, the talk page has no purpose for you. Because you are indefinitely blocked and have said, above, that you do not intend to appeal your block, you have no need to edit your talk page. It is therefore not necessary for me to review whether the removal of your talk page access was correct. Sandstein 07:14, 24 December 2010 (UTC)