| Revision as of 14:10, 20 July 2016 editNeilN (talk | contribs)134,455 edits →Moved from your user page: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:30, 20 July 2016 edit undoZackTheCardshark (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users735 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 51: | Line 51: | ||
| :::It definitely makes sense in the historical context, but by the ], that redirect should probably go to ] or ]. {{=)}} — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 18:59, 19 July 2016 (UTC) | :::It definitely makes sense in the historical context, but by the ], that redirect should probably go to ] or ]. {{=)}} — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 18:59, 19 July 2016 (UTC) | ||
| ::::I see, this is the definition of a can of worms. Better leave it as it is. Thanks! ] (]) 14:30, 20 July 2016 (UTC) | |||
| == Moved from your user page == | == Moved from your user page == | ||
| ::Malik, I am sad to read this page, as it looks racialist to me. Do you generalize about "the white man," and bad-mouth "whiteness"? Would you tolerate such negative statements about black persons? Have you utterly given up on integration as an ideal and given over to segregation & hate? We are all human beings, descendants of a common progenitor Adam, also Noah. I never met anyone in my life who was white (color of a sheet of paper); not even an albino is white. And also don't recall ever meeting a man who is black (color of the Ace of Spades). These words divide us -- we are all human beings with different amounts of pigment, which could be rated on a scale of 0-10. But so what? Men should not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the character of their spirits. It is a disgrace of character to take sides in a dispute between men based on who is my "race." In Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, no African nor European. There is one Body of Christ which all men can all enter by a new birth. (] (]) 14:07, 20 July 2016 (UTC)) | ::Malik, I am sad to read this page, as it looks racialist to me. Do you generalize about "the white man," and bad-mouth "whiteness"? Would you tolerate such negative statements about black persons? Have you utterly given up on integration as an ideal and given over to segregation & hate? We are all human beings, descendants of a common progenitor Adam, also Noah. I never met anyone in my life who was white (color of a sheet of paper); not even an albino is white. And also don't recall ever meeting a man who is black (color of the Ace of Spades). These words divide us -- we are all human beings with different amounts of pigment, which could be rated on a scale of 0-10. But so what? Men should not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the character of their spirits. It is a disgrace of character to take sides in a dispute between men based on who is my "race." In Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, no African nor European. There is one Body of Christ which all men can all enter by a new birth. (] (]) 14:07, 20 July 2016 (UTC)) | ||
| :::I'm just here for something else, and I'm not sticking around, but while you make a good point that "race" is completely made-up, replacing it by saying that your religion is better than anybody else's means you haven't left prejudice behind, either. ] (]) 14:30, 20 July 2016 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 14:30, 20 July 2016
 |
|
| 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. |
AIV
Probably not useful to ask for revdel at AIV for an already blocked editor as the bot will remove your request (I was in the process of revdelling after the block). --NeilN 00:52, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- Okay. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 01:01, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Islam in the United States
Thanks for catching my late-night disambiguation spree error. I was curious however if you think the link should be reversed to have Black Islam be the visible text as it discusses more groups than just the one that is linked to.
Thanks again!
Jasonanaggie (talk) 15:01, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- No problem. I think both articles are shown as further reading. See Islam in the United States#Black Muslim movements. — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 17:22, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Category:Phil Ochs family has been nominated for discussion
Category:Phil Ochs family, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rathfelder (talk) 18:47, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
John Brown link to 2nd Cavalry Regiment
Could the link be to "2nd", and then that redirect to "5th"? ZackTheCardshark (talk) 17:50, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- Hi ZackTheCardshark. I think the link as it is is correct. In Brown's time, it was called the 2nd U.S. Cavalry Regiment, which is what our article about Brown's raid calls it. The Misplaced Pages article is located at the regiment's modern name, 5th Cavalry Regiment. So we have a piped link that displays as "2nd U.S. Cavalry Regiment" but sends readers to the "5th Cavalry Regiment" article, like so: ], which displays as 2nd U.S. Cavalry Regiment. Are you suggesting something different? — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 18:03, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Malik, I'm thinking of making the link actually 2nd U.S. Cavalry Regiment—but then set that page to redirect to 5th Cavalry Regiment. So then, clicking that link would get to the same page (5th Cavalry Regiment), but with the message "Redirected from 2nd U.S. Cavalry Regiment." Does that make sense? ZackTheCardshark (talk) 18:38, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- It definitely makes sense in the historical context, but by the principle of least astonishment, that redirect should probably go to 2nd Cavalry Regiment (United States) or 2nd Cavalry.
— Malik Shabazz /Stalk 18:59, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- It definitely makes sense in the historical context, but by the principle of least astonishment, that redirect should probably go to 2nd Cavalry Regiment (United States) or 2nd Cavalry.
- I see, this is the definition of a can of worms. Better leave it as it is. Thanks! ZackTheCardshark (talk) 14:30, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Moved from your user page
- Malik, I am sad to read this page, as it looks racialist to me. Do you generalize about "the white man," and bad-mouth "whiteness"? Would you tolerate such negative statements about black persons? Have you utterly given up on integration as an ideal and given over to segregation & hate? We are all human beings, descendants of a common progenitor Adam, also Noah. I never met anyone in my life who was white (color of a sheet of paper); not even an albino is white. And also don't recall ever meeting a man who is black (color of the Ace of Spades). These words divide us -- we are all human beings with different amounts of pigment, which could be rated on a scale of 0-10. But so what? Men should not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the character of their spirits. It is a disgrace of character to take sides in a dispute between men based on who is my "race." In Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, no African nor European. There is one Body of Christ which all men can all enter by a new birth. (PeacePeace (talk) 14:07, 20 July 2016 (UTC))
- I'm just here for something else, and I'm not sticking around, but while you make a good point that "race" is completely made-up, replacing it by saying that your religion is better than anybody else's means you haven't left prejudice behind, either. ZackTheCardshark (talk) 14:30, 20 July 2016 (UTC)