Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:25, 1 August 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

CRT on the Supreme Court

Hi Malik, Your improvements to the critical race theory page caught my attention. To my interest, my research has turned up that Sonia Sotomayor was strongly influenced by CRT some years ago and is the only one on the Supreme Court with this in her history. During the last week, I have been adding material from 3 new books on the Roberts court to her page and am almost done. Because of her unique background, I thought to ask you if the article is anywhere close to an upgrade by peer evaluation. She would be the first woman on the Supreme Court to reach the highest level of peer evaluation at Misplaced Pages. Possibly you could give the article a once over when/if time allows to let me know if this unique judge deserves this attention. I ask this only if this field is of interest to you and if time allows. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 00:29, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Lawrence. I'll try to take a look at Sonia Sotomayor in the next week or so, but my schedule is tight and I may not be able. You might want to request a review at WP:Peer review. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 02:46, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 12:25, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Beenzino

Hello, I was hoping to make a page about Beenzino and the notice said I should contact you. I believe my draft User:Asdklf;/Beenzino fulfills the obligations of A7. Thank you for your time. Asdklf; (talk) 02:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC)Asdklf;

Hi. The key question about Beenzino is whether he is notable. See WP:MUSICBIO for the relevant notability guidelines. It appears Beenzino qualifies, so you can go ahead and move the draft to Beenzino. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 02:57, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

2012 Robocup 2D Soccer Simulation League

Robocup 2D Soccer Simulation League is part of the main event of Robotics in the entire world. It is a serious competition that happens every year in different countries. A wiki containing all information about this event is extremely necessary because it contains data about teams and everything that happens in the event. These data help others team to improve their quality to the next championships.

Again, this is the main event of robotics and artificial intelligence in the whole world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadowhunter777 (talk • contribs) 01:13, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

In order to qualify for an encyclopedia article, a subject must be "notable". Please read WP:N, our notability guideline. There was no indication that the 2012 Robocup 2D Soccer Simulation League was notable.

If the 2012 Robocup 2D Soccer Simulation League was notable, please provide me with three reliable sources that have written about it. That will help me decide whether to restore the article. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 01:41, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for not citing more sources first. I reckon that I should've done this. Anyway, here are some articles about RoboCup 2012.

http://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/technology/unsw-tops-goal-count-robocup-2012

http://www.theverge.com/2012/9/7/3287515/robocup-2012-robots-soccer-broken-necks-baby-steps

http://www.festo-didactic.com/int-en/news/robocup-2012-in-mexico-city-gold-for-germany.htm?fbid=aW50LmVuLjU1Ny4xNy4xNi40Njkx

And here is an entire book about the event: http://www.amazon.com/RoboCup-2012-Computer-Artificial-Intelligence/dp/3642392490 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadowhunter777 (talk • contribs) 07:05, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I've restored the article. Please add the sources to it. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 17:26, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadowhunter777 (talk • contribs) 02:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Help

Hi!...I need your help...!!!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lycahmae (talk • contribs) 12:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to help, but I'm not a mind-reader. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 17:28, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Hey. ... Malik,,,,where are you from? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lycahmae (talk • contribs) 12:45, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I live in Washington, D.C. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 03:21, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Palestine Map Borders

Why did you undo my correction? https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Palestine&oldid=618007457&diff=prev The dotted line on the map is dark green so the legend should correspondingly be dark-green not blue. Or am I not understanding something? Sqgl (talk) 18:11, 29 July 2014 (UTC)sqgl

I'm not sure what the dotted green line means, although it may be connected to Roman Syria Palaestina (as with the solid green line). The dotted blue line is the modern boundary of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, the State of Palestine. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 20:49, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

RfC/U on Dan56

Hey, Malik. Are you willing to certify the basis of the disputes relating to the pending RfC/U on Dan56? Harmelodix (talk) 19:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Harmelodix. I can certify the things I've witnessed, but I'm not familiar with a lot of Dan's work. If you're interested, you might want to check the edit history of User talk:GabeMc to find other editors who are dissatisfied with Dan. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 03:14, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Malik. I looked at GabMC's page, and while it looks like he retired a while back, I did see a couple of other people that took issue with Dan56's behavior. However, I assume that it would be inappropriate to rally the concerned. Is that accurate, or should I let them know about the RfC/U? Harmelodix (talk) 16:29, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

That's a good point. You probably shouldn't canvass editors, especially since you criticize Dan for doing that. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 16:33, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Palestine

hey, Mr.Malik Shabazz,why you favor of Israel?? Palestinian are freedom fighter.they want to freedom from Israeli blockade and occupation.they are not terrorist.they are freedom fighter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minsar (talk • contribs) 06:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:NPOV, because if you continue editing the way you have been recently, you likely will be topic-banned or blocked. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 16:32, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Neutral

Hi, you claim to be neutral. You obviously are not when it comes to Israel. 72.94.191.219 (talk) 08:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

King David Hotel Bombing

Please do not undo my edit of the King David Hotel bombing. The Irgun wass obviously a terrorist organization. To call them a paramilitary or underground organization is blatant propaganda.Loki51 (talk) 08:47, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

The obstacle in your way, as Malik has already pointed out, is the Manual of Style and its list of words to watch. Use of labels such as terrorism tends to be highly subjective. If you can pick out organisations which you wouldn't see as terrorist but others would, you might see the value of the ruling given in the Manual of Style. With the KDH article, you're trying to force a change which has been brought up periodically by individual editors many times in the past. --     ←   ZScarpia   09:21, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Are you serious? Just because you (and a group of like-minded apologists) spew forth propaganda, doesn't make it fact. Obviously there is NO GROUP that EVERYONE on the planet would agree is a terrorist group. Does that mean you do not use the word terrorist? Loki51 (talk) 09:50, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

1: "Are you serious?" Yes. 2: You're trying to impose one particular viewpoint as fact, which I consider an act more worthy of being labelled 'propagandistic'. 3: Personally, I, along with what I would consider all sane sources, consider the Irgun to have been a terrorist organisation. Further, I consider the particular strain of murderous, fascistic, ethnochauvinistic nationalism which motivated it to be putrid and abhorrent. However, I don't consider I have a licence to impose my own views in that regard on Misplaced Pages articles in contravention of its ethos and policy. 4: "Does that mean you do not use the word terrorist?" For starters, we are concerned with what reliable sources say, not popular, or unpopular, opinion. As the saying goes, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Can you prove that there are no reliable sources that would argue that the Irgun didn't practise terrorism? Unless you can, I think that we should abide by what the Manual of Style says about using the label 'terrorism'.     ←   ZScarpia   10:57, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

As ZScarpia wrote, regardless of our opinions, we are bound by the Manual of Style. I don't think you'll find Misplaced Pages referring to many people or groups as terrorists in the narrative voice; instead, we write that so-and-so described them as terrorists. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 19:45, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

That's so absurd. I notice both of you seem to only take this stance pro-Israel. Interesting.Loki51 (talk) 20:57, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Blue Army (Poland) again

So, the RfC concluded that a statement ought to be included in the article: . I went ahead and added the statement, and naturally it was reverted by User:COD T 3 who disputes the conclusion: . This situation is discussed here: . Any help would be appreciated. I have not yet gone to an uninvolved admin seeking a block; I'll give him a chance not to revert again. But I'm not too optimistic.Faustian (talk) 12:26, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Two (and only two) outside contributors weighed-in on the second RfC on the BA talk page. Below are their definitive statements:

• User: Truther2012 Are there other sources confirming both rapes and scrolls? It looks like the entire very controversial statement is based on a single source. Faustian, if you feel that this statement is that important for the integrity of the article, you should be able to provide more sources. Personally, I do not see why it is so important, as most armies commit similar crimes.--Truther2012 (talk) 13:32, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
• User: SMcCandlish I have to agree with Truther2012 that "most armies commit similar crimes", and thus insisting on levying a mass rape charge against the Blue Army is not really pertinent, as well as not actually feasible under WP:SYNTH with this particular sourcing. Please see also my how-to, WP:How to mine a source for a tutorial on how to get more information out of source material in a step-wise fashion. Regardless, you're going to need more of it than this very short, confusing partial quotation.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:11, 9 July 2014 (UTC) That seems reasonable to me. It is clearer within this larger-context quotation that the "laundry list" is in fact describing the "Jew-bating and pogroms".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  18:42, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

How anyone comes to the conclusion that this discussion yielded consensus and a mandate to add the highly controversial statement to the BA article is beyond me! User Faustian is completely unreasonable in interpreting theses statements as consensus, and by adding the disputed text, user Faustian is creating situations which are disruptive to the BA article. --COD T 3 (talk) 17:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Ah, there's nothing like a single-purpose account. COD T 3, do you get paid by the word? — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 19:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

You really think that I'm out here with some kind of a agenda, I don't edit Misplaced Pages. But, when I came up on this non-sense in the BA article I'm not gonna let someone just demonize the BA. Atrocities happened agains the Jews, but that needs to be properly noted, not have the article written as if the BA's sole purpose was pogroming. --COD T 3 (talk) 22:25, 1 August 2014 (UTC)