Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:14, 4 June 2014

User:Malik Shabazz/Tabs

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, then place {{Talkback|your username}} on my talk. If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, then place {{Talkback|Malik Shabazz}} on your talk. Please click here to leave me a new message.

Are you here because I deleted your article? Please read this before you leave me a message.

This is Malik Shabazz's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 5 days

Updates to Putin page following his comments of Ukraine election results.

Hi User:Malik, Earlier today I had updated the Putin page following his comments this last week-end concerning the Ukrainian election results and updated the template there to reflect this. Let me know if its any better or if anything has been overlooked in that subsection. Please note that the previous user has been edit warring on various pages related and unrelated to this one and may try to reinsert the template without telling you of his/her edit warring on other wikipages. Previously you had mentioned that my previous re-edit on the first half of this subsection was an improvement yet the previous editor re-flagged the template anyway. If you could glance at the current edit which I have tried to place as an enhancement to the subsection with new citation added. FelixRosch (talk) 17:25, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I think you did a good job of summarizing the sources, instead of quoting them. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 01:40, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

With appreciation for your comment and your edit on Putin. Directly after you placed your edit here, the previous editor who was edit warring on Putin jumped to the Romeo and Juliet page and continued the edit warring there without any support or referenced citation. I reverted once since the edit there was citing a book by Professor Harold Bloom at Yale University. Prof Bloom believes that Shakespeare adapted his version of Romeo and Juliet from a previous version of the play written before Shakespeare was born, and therefor Prof Bloom believes that informed criticism and commentary about Romeo and Juliet should start before Shakespeare's adapted version from the original version. The previous editor has now reverted twice and I have placed an edit warring notice on his/her Talk page. Should I now use my second revert and allow him/her to go to 3RR, or, do you see any way to avoid the oncoming 3RR issue. The previous editor has no citation for NPOV, and I have clearly posted the Prof Bloom book citation twice in this edit. Could you glance at this? I only ask since your helpful oversight on the Putin page had apparently deterred the previous editor from edit warring on the Putin page and maybe you could do something similarly helpful on the Romeo and Juliet page. If you prefer for me to use my second revert on this matter, then the next serial revert by the previous editor will put him/her at 3RR. My main concern in this is to enhance and correct the current Wikipage subsection on Romeo and Juliet which at present incorrectly identifies who wrote the first criticism of Romeo and Juliet by Shakespeare. Prof Bloom's book is very clear on this correction which I have referenced by including the page numbers. FelixRosch (talk) 18:41, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I recommend that you discuss this on the article's Talk page. Let other editors who are familiar with the subject voice their opinions. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 18:50, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Again with appreciation for your getting back on this. I did leave a concise message on the . The previous editor responded with edit warring and is at 3RR on the following diffs. That editor has also removed the required warning from his/her Talk page in which he/she was informed of edit warring in advance by deleting it. Could you glance at this. Here are the diffs:

(cur | prev) 08:09, 1 June 2014‎ M*** (talk | contribs)‎ . . (97,759 bytes) (-474)‎ . . (revert again not sure why the editor is lying source are on his talk page. Its impossible to criticise the play before its written please learn about a topic before editing it) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 20:29, 31 May 2014‎ Felix... (talk | contribs)‎ . . (98,233 bytes) (+474)‎ . . (→‎Critical history: Previous editor has no citation or reference for opposing published comments of Professor Harold Bloom which is fully cited here & edit is restored. Previous editor has reverted twice and has been informed of 3RR & EW on their Talk.) (undo)

(cur | prev) 21:31, 29 May 2014‎ M*** (talk | contribs)‎ . . (97,717 bytes) (-473)‎ . . (please read the article - He borrowed heavily from both but....this is from before the play was published in 1597 - pls see the meaning of critic) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 18:17, 29 May 2014‎ Felix... (talk | contribs)‎ . . (98,190 bytes) (+473)‎ . . (→‎Critical history: Professor Harold Bloom at Yale University has found Two commentaries on Romeo and Juliet before the Pepys criticism previously not mentioned on this Wikipage. Pepys cannot be referred to as the "earliest" since he is predated twice.) (undo)

(cur | prev) 07:52, 18 May 2014‎ M*** (talk | contribs)‎ . . (97,064 bytes) (-493)‎ . . (revert info that is in the article already - readers knows this by this point and the section is about "Criticism and interpretation" not origins of set work) (undo | thank)

The report of an ANI requires that the editor have a report posted on his/her Talk page for WP:EW in advance, which that editor has deleted and is continuing with disruptive editing on Romeo and Juliet. Do I file an ANI for the 3RR first, or for restoring the required notice to his/her Talk page first? FelixRosch (talk) 14:38, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:Talk page guidelines. Editors are permitted to remove warnings from their Talk pages. Please don't engage in an edit war to put warnings on Moxy's Talk page or you will be blocked.

You also might want to familiarize yourself with WP:3RR. It restricts an editor's ability to make reversions within a 24-hour period. The edits you're describing here took place over three days.

Finally, instead of threatening administrative sanction, why aren't you discussing the proposed change at Talk:Romeo and Juliet? — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 02:11, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for getting back on this matter. Following your comments, I then reposted some Talk page discussion that I had already started with another editor about Shakespeare on another editor's Talk page. It is now a part of the Talk page discussion on the Talk page for Romeo and Juliet. I understand that your instructions seem to indicate that it is better to allow the RFC posted there to take its course and to follow the resultant outcome. Both you and another editor have indicated that this does not appear to warrant anything other than discussion at this point, and I have now posted discussion comments on the Romeo and Juliet Talk page. FelixRosch (talk) 17:18, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Jewish Slave Trading

You undid changes I made. I used the terms ' claimed ' and ' opined ' as opposed to ' concludes ' because one man's view is not a scientific conclusion and therefore, the term ' concludes ' is inaccurate and misleading. Also, it should be noted that he is jewish, being that this is an analysis of jewish religious culture and it's theological justification for the trading of slaves. Obviously, a jewish person's view on the subject is open to being accused of partiality, considering the nature of the discussion. Is wikipedia committed to the preservation of history as accepted by the jewish world or is this a serious encyclopedic website? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.153.2 (talk) 14:11, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

You lost your credibility when you added "Jewish man" before Goldenberg. Goodbye. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 14:16, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

You dont have any credibility with an answer like that. Nice to know the editors at Misplaced Pages are so incapable of explaining their decisions. It is claimed in the artcile that the ' Curse of Ham ' being used to justify slave-trading is a claim made by non-jewish sources. It should be noted, therefore, that Mr. Goldenberg is jewish but I guess you have a different agenda from presenting the facts in an impartial manner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.153.2 (talk) 14:30, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Why did you delete my new page?

Living Edelweiss (the band) - was deleted by you - why?

The small beginner group is a family of 1 brother and 2 sisters trying to build their music on the internet. They have completed several recordings, and are in the process of growing their music base of instrumental music lovers in a totally new genre. So why would you delete them????

Please kindly reinstate this page at once. - Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mstark07825 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I deleted the article because it didn't explain what made the band important or significant. Please see WP:A7. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 18:39, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Issuetrak

Hello! I tried to contest the Speedy Deletion of Issuetrak on Talk:Issuetrak but you had already deleted both the page and the talk page. What about the article violated submission guidelines? The tone was objective and all facts cited. IssueTrak is one of the main competitors in the issue-tracking software industry. Thanks Buffalo747 (talk) 18:40, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Issuetrak was a redirect to a page, IssueTrak, that was deleted based on this discussion. If you think IssueTrak is notable, please take the matter to WP:Deletion review. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 18:43, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Blocked vandal is at it again now that his block has expired

Can you deal with him https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/A8mo? I've been rollbacking but he needs further action yet again. Thanks! Softlavender (talk) 02:19, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Softlavender. In addition to reverting A8mo's contributions, you need to leave a warning or two at User talk:A8mo. I'll leave the editor a warning. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 03:15, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I often don't know which template to use, and if they are resuming vandalism that they simply left off only because they were blocked, and since his entire posting history has been vandalism, it's unclear which one is indicated. Sometimes it's easier to alert one of you guys who specializes more in such things (like Tide rolls, or you who had dealt with him before) than to figure it out myself (and possibly get it wrong). Anyway, thanks for taking action, I appreciate it. Softlavender (talk) 05:04, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

He's doing it again, even after the new post-block warning -- adding blatant misinformation to articles. Would you mind blocking him? Softlavender (talk) 02:03, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 02:07, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Soliciting comment...

Hi! Would you care to review my FA nomination for the article New York Dolls (album)? If not, feel free to ignore this message. Cheers! Dan56 (talk) 06:03, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I would be honored to comment, but it will have to wait a day or two. What a great excuse to listen to that album again. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 21:42, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 May 2014

• News and notes: The English Misplaced Pages's second featured-article centurion; wiki inventor interviewed on video

• Featured content: Zombie fight in the saloon

• Traffic report: Get fitted for flipflops and floppy hats

• Recent research: Predicting which article you will edit next

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:52, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Princesse Tam-Tam

Sorry I didn't catch the "e". BMK (talk) 03:15, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

No problem. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 03:40, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Stop

Kindly stop following me around and undoing my edits. Here come the Suns (talk) 17:56, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I have 4500 pages on my Watchlist, and I'll revert vandalism on any of them as I see fit. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 19:54, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

That's nice, but none of my edits were vandalism, and alleging they are when the are not is serious misconduct for an admin, as is hounding. Just stop it. Here come the Suns (talk) 20:01, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Zionist terrorism

Why are you following every time and are aligned with your Jewish friends. I do not know how they let you become an administrator??????????--Uishaki (talk) 15:14, 4 June 2014 (UTC)