This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sir Joseph (talk | contribs) at 03:59, 3 March 2016 (→I'd appreciate a comment, if you don't mind). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 03:59, 3 March 2016 by Sir Joseph (talk | contribs) (→I'd appreciate a comment, if you don't mind)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)