Misplaced Pages

User talk:Malik Shabazz: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 01:00, 8 March 2016 editMediaWiki message delivery (talk | contribs)Bots3,138,457 edits →The Signpost: 02 March 2016: new section← Previous edit Revision as of 02:47, 8 March 2016 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,301,879 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to User talk:Malik Shabazz/Archive 58) (botNext edit →
Line 48: Line 48:
: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". —&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 02:46, 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". —&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 02:46, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
::Thanks for your kind reply. Really. Someone still has to close it, however..... and withdrawing it would spare that and the inevitable blowback. But "too late" is completely reasonable. Sorry I didn't suggest it when it would have been more actionable. ] (]) 02:48, 3 March 2016 (UTC) ::Thanks for your kind reply. Really. Someone still has to close it, however..... and withdrawing it would spare that and the inevitable blowback. But "too late" is completely reasonable. Sorry I didn't suggest it when it would have been more actionable. ] (]) 02:48, 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 ] (]) 02:04, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


== If you have time ... == == If you have time ... ==

Revision as of 02:47, 8 March 2016

SEMI-RETIRED This user is no longer very active on Misplaced Pages.

User:Malik Shabazz/Tabs

User talk
  • If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it.
  • If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist.
  • Please click here to leave me a new message.
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.

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)
I wonder if it's reliable enough for certain editors on certain pages though. I can't mention anything more for violating bans but.... Sir Joseph 03:59, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Understood. The less said about it at this point, the better. — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 04:07, 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)
Sorry, I messed up the link. And it's an interesting read, although I removed lots of my defense, apparently I'm limited to 500 words but everyone else can post, and of course since I filed an appeal that means I get a six month extension to my one week block. I'm not sure why, but that is what it looks like. (and I got a stalker, I guess I made it in life.) Sir Joseph 04:17, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Quakers#Non-theist apparently every religion has interesting sub sections. It's very interesting what you can read on Misplaced Pages and that is why I like to read and edit Misplaced Pages. Sir Joseph 14:42, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I guess it is Soviet Russia. Except here we have timestamps to show admins lying through their teeth. Sir Joseph 15:47, 6 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)
Thanks for your kind reply. Really. Someone still has to close it, however..... and withdrawing it would spare that and the inevitable blowback. But "too late" is completely reasonable. Sorry I didn't suggest it when it would have been more actionable. Jytdog (talk) 02:48, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

If you have time ...

See Talk:Canada#Oldest Aboriginal Presence --Moxy (talk) 08:11, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Alt-right on pol.

https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:4chan#Alt-right Connor Machiavelli (talk) 03:27, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Islamic Terrorist Attacks

Regarding the attack in Yemen in which 15 Elderly Christians were killed, I do not think it is appropriate to take down the post and say that it is not an Islamic attack. The local authorities stated that there is a high possibility that ISIL is responsible for the attack. Just because you think that information should be censored because it involves attacks that have been committed by Muslims that doesn't mean that you can take them down. You're username is Malcolm X so I am sure that you have a biased opinion regarding Muslims.

JasperHansen111 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karl X Saviour (talk • contribs) 08:09, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter what you or I think. What matters is what reliable sources say. According to the source you selected and cited, the motive for the attack is unknown and no group has claimed responsibility for it. If local authorities have identified the perpetrators, please cite a source that says so.
Also, please read WP:No personal attacks. As the policy says, "Comment on content, not on the contributor." Thank you. — MShabazz /Stalk 12:38, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 March 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:00, 8 March 2016 (UTC)