Misplaced Pages

User talk:Malik Shabazz

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 20:58, 4 June 2014 (Archiving 3 discussion(s) to User talk:Malik Shabazz/Archive 46) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 20:58, 4 June 2014 by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) (Archiving 3 discussion(s) to User talk:Malik Shabazz/Archive 46) (bot)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

User:Malik Shabazz/Tabs

User talk
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.
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.

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)

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

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)