User talk:Bus stop
- 1 Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section
- 2 Please comment on Talk:James Bond in film
- 3 Notice of Fringe Theories Noticeboard discussion
- 4 This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you voted on
- 5 Land art
- 6 Please comment on Talk:Matthew Gordon Banks
- 7 Check this out
- 8 Please comment on Talk:Student financial aid
- 9 Your recent change on American Jews
- 10 American Jews talk page
- 11 If you have time
- 12 Note
- 13 Please comment on Talk:Galkayo
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:James Bond in film
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:James Bond in film. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Notice of Fringe Theories Noticeboard discussion
This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you voted on
This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you voted on (2 RfCs, actually, one less than six months ago and another a year ago). The new RfC is at:
Specifically, it asks that "religion = none" be allowed in the infobox.
The first RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:
- 15 June 2015 RfC: RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.
The result of that RfC was "unambiguously in favour of omitting the parameter altogether for 'none' " and despite the RfC title, additionally found that "There's no obvious reason why this would not apply to historical or fictional characters, institutions etc.", and that nonreligions listed in the religion entry should be removed when found "in any article".
The second RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:
- 31 December 2015 RfC: RfC: Religion in infoboxes.
The result of that RfC was that the "in all Wikipedia articles, without exception, nonreligions should not be listed in the Religion= parameter of the infobox.".
Please comment on Talk:Matthew Gordon Banks
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Matthew Gordon Banks. Legobot (talk) 04:34, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Check this out
Please comment on Talk:Student financial aid
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Student financial aid. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Your recent change on American Jews
I undid your revert, because rather than giving an explanation for it, you stated an opinion. Whatever problems you may or may not have with my additions, please express them on the talk page.
American Jews talk page
I wanted to draw your attention to my edit here . I am disappointed that you would invoke frames of reference, only to immidiately insist on one singlular frame. I was hoping we could talk about this rather than edit past each other. Newimpartial (talk) 12:48, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- Also, I agree that it is a good idea to drop the discussion on the talk page, which had drifted off-topic. However, when you say "You are convinced that we are discussing distinguishing between black people and white people, but that is not what we are discussing. What we are discussing is the distinguishing between Jews who are white (the majority of Jews) and non-Jews who are white", you are clearly missing my point. If it is not possible to tell between white and non-white (or black and non-black) people "by looking", then logically it is not possible to tell between white and non-white Jewish-Americans "by looking". So, to give a specific example, in the 2020 U.S. census (assuming that the MENA classification goes through), American Jews born of two Moroccan Jewish parents would have no choice in the census instructions but to identify with the new MENA group, and therefore would not be considered "white" for census purposes. Do you really think you can tell "by looking" that they aren't white? Or are you saying that they really *are* white, even though for most purposes people from Northern Africa are not considered "white" - perhaps this is most obviously true in Europe, but it is also true in Canada and increasingly true in the U.S. How can you not see that this is relevant to the question of which Jews are "white"?Newimpartial (talk) 17:17, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
If you have time
I think it was you that was the target of Joseph A. Spadaro (talk · contribs) wrath that bought him a 3-month block. Do you think 3 months is kind of harsh? I had thought to raise that question with the blocking admin - but it's really not my business, it's more like your call, since he was attacking you, not me (not this time, anyway). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:33, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
- Bus stop, replying to your post on his talk page: He isn't blocked because he got into an argument with you; I mean, if we blocked everyone who got into an argument ... there would be no one left. You are not at risk of blocking. No one is blocked because they disagreed with someone else.
- He is blocked for repeatedly using personal attacks, belittling comments, and insults, even after he was warned to stop, after a long history of doing the same thing to other people. I would never consider a block like that if it wasn't a pattern of behavior. Because of that pattern, I don't plan to unblock or reduce the block based on your comments. However, your comments might be considered by any admin reviewing the block, that's up to them. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)