Jump to content

User talk:Malik Shabazz

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 78.68.210.173 (talk) at 21:46, 6 April 2015. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

User:Malik Shabazz/Tabs

Vandalism

Please read - carefully - what WP:VANDALISM says. this is not a reversion of vandalism. Byutiful Kampus (talk) 22:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for my edit summary, which was provided by Wikipedia's software and says that I was "reverting vandalism or test edit".
Unfortunately you chose not to look at other editors' edit summaries, in which they say that Simon Shaheen identifies as Palestinian, not Israeli. Please use Talk:Simon Shaheen to discuss the subject. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doo-wop article

FYI, somebody just reverted your last reversion. I don't know that the genre's "stylistic origins" don't include spirituals, but I'm pretty sure a capella should be there. --Rosekelleher (talk) 02:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. I changed Doo-wop because I was reverting an IP editor's vandalism across multiple articles. If another editor believes spirituals belong in the infobox, I'm inclined to leave it. Thanks again. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:14, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost – Volume 11, Issue 12 – 25 March 2015

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jews, documentation

I fail to see the pertinence of your remarks, or the justification for your repeated recent intervention. The documentation you ask is inherent in note 41 of the text, which I suggest you read. Unless you have convincing arguments to the contrary, I suggest that you undo your revision, which I would otherwise suspect of being prompted by racial-ethnic bias towards people with Jewish ancestry and/or surnames. I should hope not?

Hafniensis, 28.3. '15 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hafniensis (talk • contribs) 08:38, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You were adding information in front of footnote 69, and you think readers are supposed to magically know that the information is supported by your interpretation of footnote 41? Are you serious?
I recommend that you read WP:Verifiability and WP:No original research, because footnote 41 doesn't say what you'd like it to say.
Finally, dial back the bullshit about what you think my motives are, or I'll block you for making personal attacks. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 00:00, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"because footnote 41 doesn't say what you'd like it to say." - could you please specify this? if possible, without threats or foul language?

Hafniensis, 29.3. '15 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hafniensis (talk • contribs) 04:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Footnote 41 says that when counting Jews in a demographic survey, the survey included as Jews all people who identified themselves as Jews. It doesn't say that people are considered Jews only if they identify as Jews, as your edits to the article seem to say.[1] — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:23, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]


(1)“the survey included as Jews all people who identified themselves as Jews”…. (2)“people are considered Jews only if they identify as Jews” : to me, this is the same thing - or should be, when we are talking about informed, sociological terminology (not to mention good common sense, or civic decency). It seems you use the perf. part. “considered” in a double, or extended sense, including the meaning “regarded as” by popular opinion or the like ( ? ) – which may not be immune from racial-ethnic bias (such as “*Once a Jew, always a Jew”, or worse nonsense). You may wish to reflect upon this – or not, as you please (cf. above). I admit that I took it for granted (and therefore unproblematic) that JD Fowler’s textbook , to which note 69 refers, uses the informed scientific distinction, but I shall probably have to check on this. In the meantime, inserting a double reference to note 41 may be a good pragmatic solution. Thanks for the practical advice – also to StevenJ81.

Hafniensis, 31. March ‘15 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hafniensis (talk • contribs) 08:28, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To you, (1) and (2) may be the same thing, but they are not. Statement (1) concerns who was included in a survey, and statement (2) relates to issues of Jewish identity.
Please read WP:No original research, especially the section titled "Synthesis of published material", with respect to your "good pragmatic solution". The policy says we can't combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 16:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
May I respectfully point out, Hafniensis, that if you wish to cite footnote 41 in footnote 69, there is a way to do it. (I've done things like that in the past, though I don't recall now the way to do it. But I know there is a way.) StevenJ81 (talk) 16:01, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, to use a footnote in more than one place in an article, it should be "named". There are instructions on how to do that at WP:REFNAME. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:23, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Black history vs African-American history

Hi, I saw your edit summary on Louis Lomax and I see your point but Black history is only a dab page. Looking at the page it seems that his writing dealt with African-Americans but if the work in question deals with more than just Americans what about the red link history of black people? --J04n(talk page) 00:02, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good idea. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 00:05, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Very good, I made the change. :) --J04n(talk page) 00:08, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 00:12, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of personal attack

From this edit [2] it seems you removed something from my talk page put there by an anon, and actually deleted the edit revisions. What was the problem? I'd like to know what someone was unhappy about. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 17:43, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John. I just sent you an e-mail message concerning it. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:20, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Josephine Baker information

Removing my added information was biased because it made more logical sense than what was originally posted - so I'm going to challenge that so prepare thyself.

I was reading the Josephine Baker page to send to a friend. Not only were there many grammatical errors, misspelled words, most of the written context was awkward to read, the events in her early life were misconstrued, misplaced and wrong which is an entire insult to the beautiful and talented performer. Needless to say I did not send her the page for those asinine reasons.

The information I rewrote in reference to Ms. Baker was from Robert Greene's The Art of Seduction, on the bottom of page 61 and continues to the top of page 63 - the same exact information I learned in elementary school about Josephine from my mother, who is a black history teacher, and various sources including an 85 year old woman I met who is from and lived Paris during the time of Josephine Baker's life before retiring to the United States.

You should know by now that many people write their own historical perspective in educated form from what they learned in elementary/middle/high school and college - with and without sources. Wikipedia pages are like that, in which happen to be right most of the time when one is researching elsewhere and make a comparison elsewhere.

It seems as though very, very few of the Wikipedia pages are written are falsified, out of context, or the person didn't bother to spell check anything. For example: one Wikipedia article I read was about a well known African-American actor - the guy who wrote it, called the woman the divorced actor is dating "a side piece". Inappropriate and ghetto for one, and two, "a side piece" is a male or female that has sex or in a relationship with a taken person NOT when both parties were single when they became a couple, three how the heck did people MISS that atrocity?

When another intelligent person would notice, correct mistakes and idiocy on Wikipedia - the article goes right back to ignorance including stupidity, which happens to be completely normal in this day and age.

I speculate that you named yourself after after Malcolm X, who was a highly influential, extremely intellectual man with 2 powerful tools he used - his mind and his mouth, who, in his autobiography that he was able to recollect one small paragraph when he was still in grade school because the teacher made a racist joke about "negros feet are so big that they leave large holes in the ground."

El Hajj El Malik Shabazz remembered the lessons, experiences, other literature he read encouraged by an elderly inmate called Bimbi, who Malcolm was incarcerated with, and as a free man collectively, taught, then told to Alex Haley. Did Malcolm X quote every single piece of art or book he read from the time he started school and dropped out before is incarceration to Alex Haley? No, because if he had, the autobiography would be a lot longer than 400 pages minus the epilogue, prologue, forward.

If you claim El Hajj El Malik Shabazz is an inspiration - then you were to take the Muslim name in it's entirety. I digress - if you didn't make a pilgrimage then that's the only thing that makes sense about you. However, I'm glad that you didn't take his full Islamic name because you would seriously disgrace it and everything he stood for from expanding knowledge and sharing it to respecting women and fighting back.

Assumptions and knowingly allowing wrong or uneducated guesses being passed off as information misleads people - hopefully they're smart enough to look elsewhere if they feel the need to question everything like how I question your ability to be an editor - ESPECIALLY of a Josephine Baker Wikipedia page. Yes, I'm mad son.

Don't quit your day job brother. Take a crash course in English grammar, punctuation, and black history. I suggest you start with what a verb is, how to formulate a sentence, and oldest African tribe and get your butt out there and ASK.

P.S. - I know this can be edited so just know I've made a screen shot and keeping my original words on my laptop just in case.

"Take care now, bye bye then." 

 -Ace Ventura

Maximus0083 (talk) 23:22, 30 March 2015 (UTC)Maximus0083Maximus0083 (talk) 23:22, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of libelous allegation

Hi. The St. George's School, Newport article has a libelous allegation about the headmaster and his son which has been reverted but is still visible in the history. Could you please remove it altogether? Thanks! 67.197.243.87 (talk) 14:37, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thank you for bringing the problem to my attention. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 16:48, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much! 67.197.243.87 (talk) 02:01, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost, 1 April 2015

Third Party Resolution

Hi. I was wondering if you'd be willing to help serve as part of a third party/parties to resolve some issues with pages concerning Empire characters. Another user and I cannot agree on the set up of the pages. I bring this issue up at the page Talk:Lucious Lyon. If you are willing to help it would be much appreciated. The disagreement is listed at the bottom of the page under Empire page set-up. Thanks, Kinfoll1993 (talk) 19:01, 1 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]
The problem was brought to the attention of another user (third party) at the talk page. We are now working towards resolution. Kinfoll1993 (talk) 10:22, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fenton Communications

You two need to stop edit warring over that page and take it to the talk page. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 04:27, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI

And the other editor has opened a section at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Editor is changing rules to fit his ideology. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 04:32, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 01 April 2015

Administrative request

Hi M.S.—

I previously pitched Orangemike to take a look at the contribution history of my friend User:Bellerophon5685 with a view to getting him marked with "Autopatrolled" status. It's more than a bit ridiculous that a longterm excellent Wikipedia content person such as he is still running stuff through Articles for Creation. If you could take a moment to glance at the nearly 9 year editing history of this serious content guy and get him marked as "Autopatrolled," it would be a good thing for Wikipedia. Thanks! —Tim Davenport /// Carrite (talk) 05:02, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 14:43, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]


I don't fucking care

Fuck you. 78.68.210.173 (talk) 21:46, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Malik_Shabazz&oldid=655251565"