User talk:Malik Shabazz

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

African-American Civil Rights Movement (1954–68)

Hi Malik,

I am highly offended you would suggest that my motive is to sabotage this article. Apparently you did not read my explanation for making the changes from African American to Black. I have no idea how old you are or what you may have experienced in this country, but one thing I know for sure is that Blacks are not hyphenated Americans. They were not during the Civil Rights Movement and they never will be. An African-American is someone who was born on the continent of Africa and later migrated to the U.S., hence African-American. To accurately apply the term would mean identifying various races as African American. For instance, Charlize Theron is an African American. Furthermore, I intended University with thousands of African Americans who were born in places like Nigeria, Somolia, and Kenya and even they did not refer to themselves as African-Americans. Furthermore, at least 50% of blacks polled identify themselves as "black" not "African-American".

Although I am sure you are attempting to be politically correct by mislabeling blacks, but you are historically and technically wrong. Furthermore, who are you; is this your decision to make?

(Eg12srael (talk) 21:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)) G Israel

Hello. I didn't suggest your motive was to sabotage the article; I wrote that your edit didn't appear to be constructive. You are mistaken about who African Americans are. I recommend that you do some reading on the subject. If you believe that the word "black" should replace "African American" everywhere it appears in that article, please start a discussion at Talk:African-American Civil Rights Movement (1954–68). Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Malcolm X

Hey, I noticed that you reverted the last edits I made on the Malcolm X page. I want to thank you once again for your help on the Martin Luther King Jr. page. I wanted to talk about the Malcolm X page to see if we could come to some sort of compromise. I don't want to edit the page and mess it up, but the Youtube interviews are indisputable proof as you hear what the person says straight from the person's mouth. The James Baldwin reaction, I feel, could help strengthen the page. I will try to find another source with Baldwin's reaction if you still feel that Youtube is a bad source (I do understand why you say so), but since it is a legitimate interview from Baldwin there is no dispute that he said it, and it is a reliable citation nonetheless. Also, what Malcolm said about King, and his views after the Nation, those all show how substantially he had evolved from his time in the Nation. I also thought the Paradise Lost quotes fully explained Malcolm's views of white America (also, this was not a Youtube source, it was straight from the autobiography), and there was another source from an online article which mentioned Malcolm's disdain for the Civil Rights bill (some of the sources are not from Youtube). All of this is new info, not mentioned beforehand in the page. If you really don't want Youtube sources, I will try to find the sources that have the same information as the Youtube interviews. So, would you please revert them back (or at least the ones that do not use Youtube as citations)? I feel that the information would help the article greatly. I greatly admire Malcolm X and I noticed that you did too; I am glad to be working on the page with someone who appreciates the man. Thanks, Kinfoll77 (talk) 21:41, 1 July 2014 (UTC) 20:54, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

PS, I just found another source (a better one) from a book that speaks about Baldwin's reaction to the assassination. This is after Baldwin learns the full circumstances of Malcolm's assassination (in the Youtube interview, he only knew that he died, but not how). This book could be used as a good citation in place of the Youtube citation. Kinfoll77 (talk) 21:41, 1 July 2014 (UTC) 21:06, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd prefer to have this discussion at Talk:Malcolm X if you don't mind, so other editors can join in.

More often than not, YouTube clips are copyright violations, and as such cannot be used in citations. See WP:VIDEOREF.

The idea in the article, which is a Featured article, is to get away from quotes from Malcolm X and instead write about him using secondary sources. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:32, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I've moved the discussion/concern to Talk:Malcolm X, thanks.Kinfoll77 (talk) 04:00, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Just dropping a barnstar on your talk page at a moment when I think you might need a friendly word. I have no idea what the recent outburst was all about, but I just want you to know that I for one am very grateful for the work you do here. Thank you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:57, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

IP's back

Malik, the IP is back. I just reverted two of his edits and I reverted his removal of your warning to his talk page. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:24, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Blocked. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:25, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Great, thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:27, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Gpsfireking

Malik, thanks for actioning the speedy deletion of Trash Gordon (rapper). Looking at the user's contribs my attention was attracted to User:Gpsfireking/sandbox which is a mirror of the now deleted content. Considering Trash Gordon (Musician), Trash Gordon (Rapper) and Trash Gordon South, along with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trash Gordon South. It would seem we have a fairly tendentious editor on our hands. I wonder if you might give consideration to blocking said user on the basis they are not here to improve things and deleting the remaining sandbox page; which sits uncomfortably between self promotion and an attack page. I didn't place a CSD tag on it because it doesn't seem to fit firmly into any one category. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 21:24, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Blocked. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:34, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I've added all the deleted titles to my watchlist in anticipation of the next sock-fuelled instalment :) Bellerophon _{talk to me} 21:48, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of Zhaodong shooting

Good morning,

I have just received notice that the article about the Zhaodong shooting has been deleted, based on the claim that it is a hoax. I can assure you that it is not and there are reliable Chinese sources that prove it. Anyway, the article was moved by another Wikipedian from my user space to mainspace without consulting me, or leaving a note at my talk-page, and by deleting it I don't have access to its content anymore, even though I still want to work on it. So, could you please revert the deletion and move the page back to User:Lord Gøn/Zhaodong shooting? It would be very much appreciated. (Lord Gøn (talk) 22:56, 4 July 2014 (UTC))

I've restored the page to your userspace per your request. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:02, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much. (Lord Gøn (talk) 23:01, 4 July 2014 (UTC))

Ross Parker dab page

01:03, 5 July 2014 Malik Shabazz (talk | contribs) deleted page Ross Parker (G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page (TW))

20:59, 4 July 2014 TheRedPenOfDoom (talk | contribs) moved page Ross Parker to Ross Parker (disambiguation) (the large number of incoming links proves the composer is the main use) (revert)

Hi M.S., can you please undo this, and restore Talk page as well, it seems User:TheRedPenOfDoom realised 10 minutes after requesting this that there was an RM happening and participated in the RM here. Presumably the RM wasn't noted on the Talk page of the article requested to be deleted. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:21, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Presumably G7 "one author" shouldn't be placed on a page with several editors history even after moving it before G7? In ictu oculi (talk) 08:23, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi In ictu oculi. It looks like the page has been restored. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:01, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Just for my own guidance, was that in fact a correct use of G7? In ictu oculi (talk) 16:47, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

It's an alternative to {{db-move}} that some editors use. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:50, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:53, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Goddessy Organics

Hi, I do not like creating or causing conflict so I am sending a friendly note here to say that I'd like to either add the article I wrote back or if you re-add it and remove what appeared to seem ambiguous, that would be fine too. Sohoforgotpassword (talk) 20:23, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I added the page back but did some major editing as an attempt to make the article more acceptable, I hope. Please let me know how I can improve it or work on it to make it meet with the criteria here. Thanks. Sohoforgotpassword (talk) 21:27, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Sohoforgotpassword. In order to qualify for an encyclopedia article, a subject must be "notable". Please see WP:N, our notability guideline. It doesn't appear that Goddessy Organics satisfies the requirements at this time. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:27, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you kindly for the reply. Goddessy Organics has received significant coverage from reliable, independent third party sources. I removed the referencing from Goddessy affiliated websites and there are now 20 references listed, all from objective, third party sources. Lancome and Clinique combined only have a little over a dozen. Isn't 20 sources enough for notability? Does this article require more or is it being questioned because I am a new editor who probably has poor writing skills? I wrote another article and someone edited there to make it suffice. Can others step in to help? Sohoforgotpassword (talk) 10:03, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that most of the sources are either not reliable sources or they're not about the company. As I wrote, the company doesn't appear to be notable at this time. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:22, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Viva Technics

Hello,

I am trying to create a page for our company. It seems you have deleted the page. Is there anything we should take into consideration? Thanks Kayvan Rafiee — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kayvanrafiee (talk • contribs) 04:12, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

In order to qualify for an encyclopedia article, a company must be "notable". Please see WP:CORP, the relevant notability guideline. If Viva Technics satisfies the requirements, please write a new article by summarizing in your own words what reliable sources have written about the company. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:26, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 July 2014

• In the media: Wiki Education; medical content; PR firms

• Traffic report: The Cup runneth over... and over.

• News and notes: Wikimedia Israel receives Roaring Lion award

• Featured content: Ship-shape

• WikiProject report: Indigenous Peoples of North America

• Technology report: In memoriam: the Toolserver (2005–14)

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Wagner Santos Lago

You just G4'ed this page while I was trying to edit it to remove the tag. Apparently it was 'A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy' of the page that went to AFD 3 years ago. Which surprises me, given I added to it earlier today, so it's identically to the version from 3 years ago seems surprising. Also, it appears to meet WP:NFOOTY with Warner being the capitan of NK Široki Brijeg listed in WP:FPL. Can you undelete this ... or at least pass me the two previous versions of the article ... as I'm having a hard time understanding how the pages can be so similar! Thanks, Nfitz (talk) 21:45, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

NK Široki Brijeg is listed in WP:FPL, but among the "top level leagues which are not fully professional". Consequently, playing for the team does not qualify Wagner Santos Lago under WP:NFOOTBALL, which requires play in a "fully professional league".

If you think the deletion discussion should be overturned, please bring the matter to WP:Deletion review. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:01, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Ah interesting ... I think when I started editing it, it said he played for HNK Rijeka which IS listed as fully professional in WP:FPL. I don't think I noticed when I fixed it that the team was in a different league! However, given this players prominence on the team, participation in many Europa League and Champions League games, and significant recent media coverage, I think it may still meet WP:GNG. However, that isn't the issue here. The issue was I was removing the Speedy tag when you deleted it. I'm not sure why I wasn't notified when the speedy tag was placed, as one of the few significant contributors to the article. Please provide me with a copy of the two versions of the article so I can verify that it did actually meet the speedy criteria of 'A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy'. I'm not sure that WP:DRV is the appropriate arena. Surely this should be going back to WP:AFD if the articles are not virtually identical (which seems unlikely given I wasn't even aware of the previous article!). Nfitz (talk) 22:22, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I've posted copies of the articles at User:Nfitz/Wagner Santos Lago 2011 and User:Nfitz/Wagner Santos Lago 2014. When you're finished with them, you can have them deleted by adding {{db-u1}} at the top of each page. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:32, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, the first thing that jumps out at me, is we seem to have two articles that for the same defunct team at NK Posušje and HŠK Posušje! I'm not seeing how these two articles meet the criteria of a "sufficiently identical article". It looks to me that they were both written from scratch. Nfitz (talk) 22:39, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Today's article seems to me to be "sufficiently identical and unimproved" relative to the lead of the 2011 article. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:55, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I think the intent of that was to stop people coming back and putting the same article in place; not to disallow similar articles years later. I'm still scratching my head, how if I'd had an extra 30 seconds to press Enter, we wouldn't be here, but at AFD. Surely a contested speedy deletion (by other than the page creator) goes to AFD. Hmm, doesn't the Deletion Policy state this? Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Deletion discussion

To me, "unimproved" means that if a new article is sufficiently identical to the deleted article and doesn't address the problems that led to its deletion, it may be deleted under G4. If you think a few more minutes' editing would make a difference, I'll restore the article I deleted and let you finish it. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:59, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd simply undelete and go to AFD. At this point the major issue wouldn't be the content of the article itself. It's whether the player meets notability guidelines. Personally my editing window is pretty much done until at least July 13th ... Nfitz (talk) 00:23, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Revision deletion on Berry Good

I am contacting you because I respect you as an editor and you have listed yourself on Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to handle RevisionDelete requests. Could you remove the first few edits to Berry Good, as it contains personal identifiable information of the group's members, such as blood type and birthday. I believe that this is criteria for revision deletion, so could you suppress the edit? (Or delete the page entirely for A7 if it meets the criteria?) Piguy101 (talk) 01:47, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I deleted the article under A7. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:50, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Good. Thanks Piguy101 (talk) 01:53, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Intimidating new users, Arbitrary interpretation of Wikipedia guidelines

You stated on my talk page that I am making "snide comments" and "violating ARBPIA" with "my attacks."

Given that you tried to bully and intimidate a new Wikipedia user with snide comments (amongst other tactics mentioned there) user:Monochrome_monitor just yesterday, you might want to re-consider criticizing other users for that, particularly when unlike you, I was trying to make a serious point, and my statements were not directed at new users.

I also can't see how comments on a talk page can violate ARBPIA. Are you trying to arbitrarily re-write Wikipedia policies for the sake of threatening other users?

Speaking of arbitrarily re-writing policies, you have provided no explanation on said talk page where you alternatively claimed that the validity of sources must be either proven or disproven depending on whether or not you support them. I would appreciate an explanation for that. Wikieditorpro (talk) 02:19, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Levan Jibladze (Leo Jee)

Hello Malik i dont understand why u deleted this article ?--Best Regards 06:49, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of Spotahome

Hi there, I see you deleted my article on Spotahome. I assume it was under A7. This article was previously deleted and I rewrote it doing additional research and using reliable sources. (Genbeta, for example, is a leading source of technology news in Spain, where Spotahome is based.) If possible, I would like to continue working on this article. Or, at the least, understand why it was deleted despite the sourcing, and what I can do to prevent my articles from being deleted in the future. Best Sweeeedishfish (talk) 07:36, 7 July 2014 (UTC)