| Revision as of 18:30, 4 May 2016 editSir Joseph (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers19,854 edits →Please don't badger the opposers at the Stanley Milgram RfC← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:36, 4 May 2016 edit undoBishonen (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators80,376 edits You have been blocked from editing. (TW)Next edit → | ||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
| *Bishonen, please see the first survey response in that thread and see the first person to respond to a survey. Hint, it wasn't myself or Bus stop. ] <sup><font color="Green">]</font></sup> 14:21, 4 May 2016 (UTC) | *Bishonen, please see the first survey response in that thread and see the first person to respond to a survey. Hint, it wasn't myself or Bus stop. ] <sup><font color="Green">]</font></sup> 14:21, 4 May 2016 (UTC) | ||
| Also, can you please tell me why I'm now most likely going to be subjected to a ban on Jews or religion? It is disgusting what is going on. ] <sup><font color="Green">]</font></sup> 18:30, 4 May 2016 (UTC) | Also, can you please tell me why I'm now most likely going to be subjected to a ban on Jews or religion? It is disgusting what is going on. ] <sup><font color="Green">]</font></sup> 18:30, 4 May 2016 (UTC) | ||
| == May 2016 == | |||
| <div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> ] You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''1 week''' for wearing out editors' patience and ] them into the ground with your relentless repetitions and exhausting ] issues in regard to the religion parameter in biography infoboxes. People need a rest. Your recent comments on my page are the last straw. Just two recent examples of your refusal or inability (I honestly don't know which it is) to listen to what other people say: I referred to the ANI thread "Sir Joseph again" which had been closed because the OP Guy Macon stated that it could be closed as "Sir Joseph appears to have dropped the stick". A generous gesture on GM's part, I thought, less generously answered by SJ with "Support but suggest an admin admonish Guy Macon for his behavior". I mentioned this on my page in response to a somewhat despairing note from ]. You read some of my post, I guess — maybe every other word — did you read the ANI in question at all? — because you answered with stunning irrelevance: {{tq|"Bishonen, do you see the problem with Guy asking me to drop the stick? I could very well ask him to drop the stick."}} Guy hadn't asked you to drop the stick; I hadn't said Guy had asked you to drop the stick; to the contrary, I had mentioned Guy SAID YOU HAD DROPPED THE STICK. Quite different, a lot nicer. It's hard to convey with just a couple of examples how exhausting the persistent misreadings and the consequent barking up the wrong tree are, but here's another one from the same day (today): Guy Macon asks you repeatedly (and surely reasonably) in for an "exact quote that you think supports your claim that "You can be a member of the Jewish religion without being religious or practicing Judaism" please" and gets only an evasive complaint about personal attacks; he asks again and again and gets nothing relevant — not even a straightforward refusal to answer. I don't know if you fail to notice the question, or just prefer to ignore it. The AGF option is to assume the first alternative, but it wears thin. You'll notice GM is losing his temper in the discussion. It would be better if he didn't, but I find it hard to blame him; he'd have to be a saint or Newyorkbrad to keep it. Please note that I have given ''two details out of many many examples''; please don't take a notion that I've blocked you specifically for those particular details. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ]. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may ] by first reading the ], then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx|" code. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here ~~~~''}}. ] | ] 22:36, 4 May 2016 (UTC)</div><!-- Template:uw-block --> | |||
Revision as of 22:36, 4 May 2016
I am: IN
 | This user previously used another account. |
| This is Sir Joseph's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13Auto-archiving period: 7 days  |
|
Template:Archive box collapsible
Please don't badger the opposers at the Stanley Milgram RfC
Part of the reason you were topic banned from Bernie Sanders was that you kept hinting that people who opposed including religion in that infobox had something against Jews. You're doing it again at Stanley Milgram, where you're suggesting in the RFC that an editor " something against people labeled as Jews". If you think it's safe to behave that way in this instance because Milgram is not a living person, you're mistaken. You can be sanctioned for disruption of any page, discretionary sanctions or no discretionary sanctions. Bishonen | talk 19:06, 3 May 2016 (UTC).
- I asked a question to show me the policy, and I haven't gotten any response yet when I or Bus Stop reply, we're told to drop the stick. I won't post in the vote section, but I have every right to ask for the policy that says if you want to be labeled Jewish, you need to be a PRACTICING Jew. I've never seen that anywhere. Milgram is not the same as Sanders, he wasn't ethnically or culturally Jewish at all. A member of a Temple, someone who had a bris and had his sons circumcised, someone who had a Jewish marriage ceremony, is not merely a cultural Jew. Why can't I request someone to actually show me the policy that says Milgram isn't Jewish enough? And if he's not, what is considered Jewish enough? Are we now going to be the religion police? Judaism is not like Christianity and we ought not to impose the latter's standards of belief on to the former. User:Bus_stop displayed a list of 20 or so people with different religions, yet it's Milgram that is facing scrutiny. Again, we don't go into someone's bedroom and determine belief. Milgram clearly passes the smell test to be labeled Jewish. Then comes the question of is that notable enough to be included in the infobox. Sir Joseph 19:11, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Some of our exchanges are more farfetched than others. Sundayclose will say "The responsibility to provide a source that Milgram practiced Judaism is on those who wish to add that to the infobox." I respond "from where do you derive that a Jew must 'practice Judaism' (in order to add his religion to the Infobox)? Is this found in policy?" Sundayclose responds "The policy (determined by consensus) is that Misplaced Pages needs a source that the person identifies with and subscribes to the religion". I respond "I asked you if this is found in policy. You have not linked to a policy." Sundayclose responds "Already asked and answered. Read all discussion above. Drop the stick. GOTO 10." A conversation of that nature is sure to be nonproductive. The RfC is only productive if the participants engage in the sort of dialogue in which both sides are forthcoming with their arguments. If I am asked a question, I try to respond in a way that moves the discussion further forward. And I don't make jokes to try to make fun of the other person. What is "GOTO 10"? Bus stop (talk) 19:50, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- This reminds me that I should have saved a letter I needed that said "I am a practicing Jew." Sir Joseph 19:58, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Some of our exchanges are more farfetched than others. Sundayclose will say "The responsibility to provide a source that Milgram practiced Judaism is on those who wish to add that to the infobox." I respond "from where do you derive that a Jew must 'practice Judaism' (in order to add his religion to the Infobox)? Is this found in policy?" Sundayclose responds "The policy (determined by consensus) is that Misplaced Pages needs a source that the person identifies with and subscribes to the religion". I respond "I asked you if this is found in policy. You have not linked to a policy." Sundayclose responds "Already asked and answered. Read all discussion above. Drop the stick. GOTO 10." A conversation of that nature is sure to be nonproductive. The RfC is only productive if the participants engage in the sort of dialogue in which both sides are forthcoming with their arguments. If I am asked a question, I try to respond in a way that moves the discussion further forward. And I don't make jokes to try to make fun of the other person. What is "GOTO 10"? Bus stop (talk) 19:50, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Bishonen, please see the first survey response in that thread and see the first person to respond to a survey. Hint, it wasn't myself or Bus stop. Sir Joseph 14:21, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Also, can you please tell me why I'm now most likely going to be subjected to a ban on Jews or religion? It is disgusting what is going on. Sir Joseph 18:30, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
May 2016
"Bishonen, do you see the problem with Guy asking me to drop the stick? I could very well ask him to drop the stick."Guy hadn't asked you to drop the stick; I hadn't said Guy had asked you to drop the stick; to the contrary, I had mentioned Guy SAID YOU HAD DROPPED THE STICK. Quite different, a lot nicer. It's hard to convey with just a couple of examples how exhausting the persistent misreadings and the consequent barking up the wrong tree are, but here's another one from the same day (today): Guy Macon asks you repeatedly (and surely reasonably) in this discussion for an "exact quote that you think supports your claim that "You can be a member of the Jewish religion without being religious or practicing Judaism" please" and gets only an evasive complaint about personal attacks; he asks again and again and gets nothing relevant — not even a straightforward refusal to answer. I don't know if you fail to notice the question, or just prefer to ignore it. The AGF option is to assume the first alternative, but it wears thin. You'll notice GM is losing his temper in the discussion. It would be better if he didn't, but I find it hard to blame him; he'd have to be a saint or Newyorkbrad to keep it. Please note that I have given two details out of many many examples; please don't take a notion that I've blocked you specifically for those particular details. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bishonen | talk 22:36, 4 May 2016 (UTC)