User talk:Malik Shabazz

User:Malik Shabazz/Tabs

Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end.
Start a new talk topic.

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 Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1: 5 days

Search the Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by when more than 2 sections are present.

MLK and Political Parties Deletion

Hi Malik:

Today you deleted the sections I added on Martin Luther King Jr. his view of both his public and private stance on US Political parties during his lifetime.

Martin Luther King, Jr.'

I understand well that it is a "hot" and in some circles controversial topic. But I'd contend that this very fact makes it relevant and makes it an issue where Wikipedia could offer great value in pointing to accurate, well sourced data, such as I was attempting to offer.

You can see many examples of current debate over King's personal views from across the political spectrum such as here: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=16500

and

Here: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/14/billboard-claiming-martin-luther-king-republican-angers-black-activists-houston/

and here: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/01/08/288365/-Dr-King:-A-Registered-Republican

Politifact.com felt the issue was relevant enough for them to do an article and research position on his political views: http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2011/jan/17/raging-elephants/houston-group-says-martin-luther-king-jr-was-repub/

But if you note, none of those articles found the directly sourced information I included in my addition. We would be adding greatly to the conversation with this evidence included.

I believe the direct sourced quotations do add a great deal of relevance and sourced research to the question. Again: I'd suggest that sort of strongly sourced good data is what Wikipedia is for.

My suggestion to you is all of this attention is evidence that this aspect of Dr. King's life and views remains a deeply relevant part of his legacy. And one that benefits greatly from well sourced direct evidence.

The topic of King's political views has been one that is very relevant to our understanding of his view of his own role in the political space as well as insight into the private side of Dr. King.

I posted the research I had done in the talk section a long while ago, back in jan 2010 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Martin_Luther_King,_Jr.&oldid=412039972#Martin_Luther_King.27s_Political_Party.

You'll note that then users there said:

"Seems you've found the documentation we were looking for; we can't say he was a registered Democrat or anything like that, at least from the "in the past" quote. --jpgordon::==( o )

..and then recently last week before posting to see if there was any controversy or questions about the veracity of my research, and saw none.

So could you reconsider that deletion, or explain how I could improve that section? I worked very hard to make it from a NPOV, to be purely based on direct quotes with direct sourcing...

Thanks,

Tim

Timothyjchambers (talk) 18:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome

Gotta stick together. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 22:06, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar

Hi, Misleading is the word I think you were looking for. Misleadingly is not a word. I see you have alot to learn about Stanley. Let me know when you are ready. Enjoy, The Gajonka

According to my Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary (1987), misleadingly is a perfectly good word. LadyofShalott 04:02, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious who Stanley is. I have "alot" to learn about him.

— Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:07, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope it's this Stanley. I've always liked to go on trips.

Gajonka seems to have confused not only his/her grammar, but also you with WickerGuy (and it would appear that's Kubrick). LadyofShalott 04:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Admittedly, I know much less about Stanley Kubrick than I do about Owsley. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your revert of 21:16, 28 October 2011 - The rationale was already on the talk page

It's actually up to you to take it to the talk pages, rather than a wholesale revert WP:ROWN. I explained quite fully my reasons for the addition of material in the summary and on the Talk page.

There is an accepted definition of who can be considered a Palestinian refugee for legal purposes. I gave secondary sources for it. Furthermore it was chronologically impossible for UNGA res 194 to be based on the UNRWA definition.

Self revert thx ... talknic (talk) 21:47, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Silence is not the manner in which an administrator should act in order to resolve issues. I've asked reasonable questions, in the appropriate place, Talk [1], in keeping with the guidelines for resolving such matters. As I've received no further replies on the Talk page since your reply of 22:16, 28 October 2011 in respect to your action (not the topic). It's now, appropriately, here ....

I don't believe silence is the expected behaviour for an administrator. Nor is it to invite an editor "to have another go at it, please do so"[2] knowing full well, as an administrator, it would be in violation of 1RR

"An encyclopedia article isn't the place to debate the meaning of "refugee" and who defined" I didn't instigate a discussion on the meaning of refugee or who defined in the Article, the record shows it's in Talk. Your accusation is I'm afraid, false. However, you did by A) a full revert then; B) inviting me "to have another go at it"

"If you want to write a rebuttal, use the Talk page" The record on the Talk page shows that was the exact process I followed. It received exactly NO responses until after the change was made. A familiar technique used on the I/P issue.

"Since your addition was pedantic and pointy, I reverted it" It was informative, sourced appropriately, concise and to the point. An encyclopedia by it's nature leans towards being pedantic and to the point.

"If you'd like to edit constructively, please do so." The edit was informative, within the guidelines and as the record shows, it was made after having attempted to draw attention to the matter in Talk and having received no response whatsoever for some three weeks.

"Don't add phrases and sentences to the encyclopedia such as "Not applicable to UNGA res 194" " The Secondary Source provided says as much and goes into the matter in great detail. However, you should know as an administrator the recommended procedure is to attempt to correct that phrase or to have challenged that phrase in Talk, rather than a full revert.

"and "The UNRWA definition was not the basis for United Nations General Assembly Resolution 194, which was adopted Dec 11th 1949, 12 months prior to UNRWA's establishment." The basis for UNGA Res 194 is in the Secondary Source, it was not the UNRWA definition. Again, it says as much in great detail in the provided source

Furthermore the Secondary Source you reverted, accurately reflects the Primary Source document it cites. You have reverted to A) a completely un-sourced B) incorrect statement and; C) a completely un-sourced paragraph which could lead readers to believe the UNRWA figure is the basis of the Palestinian UNGA Res 194 claim ... talknic (talk) 02:07, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Malik Shabazz - Apology re - meal schedule at [3] ... talknic (talk) 04:06, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack between two members for a worthless race/religion discussion

Such a pointless-worthless-boring discussion which is neither related to the article not useful for article development. please delete and prevent other people from wasting their time reading it [4][5]--Proud coptic (talk) 00:24, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proud coptic - "worthless race/religion" amounts to an un-necessary and disparaging remark against millions of otherwise peaceful & respectable people ... talknic (talk) 04:14, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think he's referring to a "worthless discussion," as opposed to saying that "race and/or religion is worthless," etc. AzureCitizen (talk) 04:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That was the way I read it too. There was some nasty name-calling (worthless discussion) which has now been deleted. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your immediate respond.--Proud coptic (talk) 05:46, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Old pre-deletion Jason Plummer (politician) article?

I noticed that Jason Plummer (politician) was deleted as WP:CSD#G6 to make way for an "uncontroversial" move onto the same name. Is there a way to restore the contents of the pre-deletion articles? (It doesn't matter if it's restored to some other temporary name instead; it's the content I'm looking for.) The original article might be two deletions ago instead of one deletion ago. If I remember, some of the edits were controversial removal of content: see warning User talk:Pplasse#February 2011 that was issued after this user attempted to remove content because it was not "authorized" by the subject of the article. Now this "new article" has been written by the same user, and deleting the old article has conveniently erased the previous version and its history, leaving only Pplasse's ("authorized"?) Jason Plummer information as the new one. --Closeapple (talk) 20:42, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also on that note, the article was the subject of an attempt to falsely "protect" it (see User talk:75.1.30.121 and this edit), for which 75.1.30.121 was blocked; I believe that is related to the edits I mentioned before. Also, there is an old Talk:Jason Plummer (politician) that might explain all this but was of course deleted along with the old article. It may be informative to revive that talk page under some name also. --Closeapple (talk) 22:34, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Closeapple (talk) 15:57, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Hey, if you have the time, would you please intervene on this article. I've gotten myself a stalker with a grudge pestering on me on articles he's never edited before. He's not particularly bothering me, but ITN/C is trying to get the article up for posting on the main page.

He keeps removing relevant sections of the article that were added over a month ago (the article has been substantially edited by numerous editors since then, including him), insisting that the standing consensus is the new version he keeps introducing. He seems to have given "permission" in his last edit summary for me to revert some of his edits (but not others)--he's well aware that I disagree with his edits, but he's made no attempt to self-revert and keep what he concedes is the standing consensus.

We're discussing it on the talk page meanwhile, so I normally wouldn't bother with admin intervention, but I'd like to get the article posted to the main page in an acceptable state. Any help would be appreciated, Nightw 18:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're invited! Wikipedia Loves Libraries DC

Wikipedia Loves Libraries DC & edit-a-thon

Wikipedia Loves Libraries comes to DC on Saturday, November 5th, from 1-5pm, at the Martin Luther King Jr Memorial Library.

We will be holding an edit-a-thon, working together to improve Wikipedia content related to DC history, arts, civil rights, or whatever suits your interests. There may also be opportunities to help with scanning historic photos plus some swag!

You're invited and we hope to see you there!

RSVP + more details!

Note: You can remove your name from the DC meetup invite list here. -- Message delivered by AudeBot (talk) 19:00, 31 October 2011 (UTC), on behalf of User:Aude[reply]