| Revision as of 02:42, 3 March 2016 editJytdog (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers187,951 edits →Consider withdrawing the RfC on Sanders' religion?: ce← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:46, 3 March 2016 edit undoMalik Shabazz (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers106,163 edits →Consider withdrawing the RfC on Sanders' religion?: replyNext edit → | ||
| Line 46: | Line 46: | ||
| hi Malik - by framing the RfC as a yes/no question "Should the infobox in this article include "Religion: Jewish"? " I fear you have set up the community to fail and set up a zero-sum discussion that is itself, I think, driving the rancor. A question where we could have maybe found a consensus would have been open like "What should be in the "religion=" field in the infobox?". Would you please consider withdrawing the RfC? Only you can do that, at this point. Thanks. ] (]) 01:06, 3 March 2016 (UTC) | hi Malik - by framing the RfC as a yes/no question "Should the infobox in this article include "Religion: Jewish"? " I fear you have set up the community to fail and set up a zero-sum discussion that is itself, I think, driving the rancor. A question where we could have maybe found a consensus would have been open like "What should be in the "religion=" field in the infobox?". Would you please consider withdrawing the RfC? Only you can do that, at this point. Thanks. ] (]) 01:06, 3 March 2016 (UTC) | ||
| :Hi ]. Thank you for your message. I don't think there's any point in withdrawing the RfC. It will be 30 days old tomorrow, and in any event it's going to be closed as "No consensus". — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 02:46, 3 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| == Message of support == | == Message of support == | ||
Revision as of 02:46, 3 March 2016
SEMI-RETIRED This user is no longer very active on Misplaced Pages. |
|
| This is Malik Shabazz's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 5 days  |
|
Search the Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present. |
Sojourner Truth
Greetings, I am glad that while you are still "semi-retired" you watch over Truth's article. I hope you stick around. Cheers, Caballero/Historiador 04:10, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you, Caballero1967. I appreciate the kind words. — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 04:13, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
I'd appreciate a comment, if you don't mind
https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Bernie_Sanders_Topic_Ban_Appeal_from_Sir_Joseph Sir Joseph 18:43, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Sir Joseph. I'll comment at WP:A/E, which is on my watchlist.
- For future reference, please familiarize yourself with WP:CANVASS, which you may have violated by posting a message here. — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 04:45, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks, I thought since you're not an admin so it's not a vote it wouldn't matter, but I guess with Wiki everything is a problem. And now some admin is proposing a six month ban for me I guess because I dared appeal the initial ban, I think. Although I'm not sure why. Sir Joseph 18:00, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- BTW, is Encyclopedia Britannica a WP:RS? The free version is available online and they have some nice articles online for all to use. Sir Joseph 18:32, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, Britannica is a reliable source. Encyclopedias are tertiary sources and while secondary sources are preferred, tertiary sources are fine. You should read WP:PSTS, a section of WP:NOR, which discusses the appropriate use on Misplaced Pages of tertiary sources. — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 02:39, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- Strange, I wonder why a request for enforcement it listed on the requests for arbitration? Completely different area, I believe. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:55, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
- It's at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Sir Joseph. I don't know what happened to the link posted by Sir Joseph above. — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 02:39, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- BTW, is Encyclopedia Britannica a WP:RS? The free version is available online and they have some nice articles online for all to use. Sir Joseph 18:32, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks, I thought since you're not an admin so it's not a vote it wouldn't matter, but I guess with Wiki everything is a problem. And now some admin is proposing a six month ban for me I guess because I dared appeal the initial ban, I think. Although I'm not sure why. Sir Joseph 18:00, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Consider withdrawing the RfC on Sanders' religion?
hi Malik - by framing the RfC as a yes/no question "Should the infobox in this article include "Religion: Jewish"? " I fear you have set up the community to fail and set up a zero-sum discussion that is itself, I think, driving the rancor. A question where we could have maybe found a consensus would have been open like "What should be in the "religion=" field in the infobox?". Would you please consider withdrawing the RfC? Only you can do that, at this point. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:06, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Jytdog. Thank you for your message. I don't think there's any point in withdrawing the RfC. It will be 30 days old tomorrow, and in any event it's going to be closed as "No consensus". — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 02:46, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Message of support
- You have my full support Malik. I shall be making a comment on the relevant page later today. Regards, Simon Irondome (talk) 02:04, 3 March 2016 (UTC)