User talk:Malik Shabazz

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

Source validity & reverts

Hi Malik, I seem to be having an issue with another editor that continues to revert and delete sourced material in favor of his wording, here, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_George Lazyfoxx (talk) 15:05, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Malik, please read the full discussion between Lazyfoxx and myself here, here and here. If you could provide a third opinion here I would very much appreciate it. Cheers, —  Cliftonian (talk)  15:28, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Lazyfoxx and Cliftonian. I'll review the background and get back to you over the next couple of days. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:33, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Malik. —  Cliftonian (talk)  02:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Please note the deletion of a reliable source three times, here, here, and here., on an article that may be in the scope of the I/P area due to the content being discussed. Lazyfoxx (talk) 18:37, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I did not delete reliable sources. On each occasion I replaced the two source footnotes Lazyfoxx added with a larger bundle of sources (with the ref name parameter "origins") including both of the sources he had added (Guiley and Maloney). No source information was actually removed on any of these occasions. —  Cliftonian (talk)  18:41, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, but the issue remains of your constant reverting to the wording you see fit, when a reliable source clearly states it the way I had it. Lazyfoxx (talk) 19:59, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

With respect, I do not see what happened the same way. I will wait for outside views. Thank you for your patience Lazyfoxx. —  Cliftonian (talk)  20:34, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

81.151.31.35

Good evening, MS: When you have a moment, could I trouble you to lend a hand with the above IP? He has been edit warring on the Eustace Mullins page; I put a warning template on his talk page, which he ignored, and then reverted my revert, mocking my edit summary just to be a bit more obnoxious about it. Others reverted him before me, and I'm now at 2RR on this, so we need an admin to step in. Thanks, DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 00:59, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi DoctorJoeE. I've blocked the editor for violating 3RR. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:52, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Appreciate it, as always -- but now we apparently have a sock -- 81.151.30.82 -- geolocates to same town in central UK -- messing with the same article, and also commenting on another admin's talk page that "WP is run by masonic zionist shills". Wow, I had no idea. You learn something every day. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 13:43, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

The things you can learn on Wikipedia. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:08, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Enlightening, but confusing — only recently, over at talk: Andrew Wakefield, I was informed that our Medicine Project is controlled by pharma shills; but I can't seem to get a piece of that action. It would be lovely if some drug company were willing to pay me to add new or updated information, cite reliable sources, disabuse people of misinformation, copy-edit — that is, what I do here already, for free — but that recruiter never calls. Bugger. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 18:01, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

If you figure out how to get Big Pharma to pay you for editing Wikipedia, please let me know. I'd love to be a part of that.

Or maybe we should get Zionist Pharma to bankroll us, and keep all the crazies happy. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:02, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Cool! A Taro rep is coming by the office tomorrow -- but then, Taro is a subsidiary of Sun, which is based in Mumbai -- does that nullify its "Zionist" credentials? I'm so confused!! DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 08:06, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Israelites

I have tried unsuccessfully (twice) to correct what I believe to be an erroneous reference and inference in the above subject matter (wiki page on Israelites) - and additionally I have used your own Wiki page as well as other acceptable academic sources to back up my statements.

You / Wiki seem to simply determine that my comments are not worth consideration and despite stating what I think should be clarified in this (referenced) article as referenced to your other corresponding / associated (Merneptah Stele) wiki article and moreover with no justification other than indicating that my comment isn't relevant. If my comment isn't deemed relevant here then perhaps you should police your own pages and remove what I say from your Merneptah Stele page (and others) also!

So be it - I shall not be commenting again although I shall be contacting others from the higher academic community to express my experiences here.

Pwldnvthailand (talk) 07:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

As I wrote on your Talk page, the appropriate place for your comments is Talk:Israelites. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 10:40, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 August 2015

• News and notes: Superprotect, one year later; a contentious RfA

• In the media: Paid editing; traffic drop; Nicki Minaj

• Forum: Community voices on paid editing

• Wikimanía report: Wikimanía 2015, part 2, a community event

• Traffic report: Fighting from top to bottom

• Featured content: Fused lizards, giant mice, and Scottish demons

• Technology report: Tech news in brief

• Blog: The Hunt for Tirpitz

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:49, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Attacking socks

Hi there. I'm thinking of opening an SPI just for the record. This is because two new accounts have recently come up and it may be best to tie them together and to alert userpage patrollers and AfC workers.

All are blocked. This is the group/individual recreating an attack page on a certain individual. Content from the very first draft to the latest has content that shows they are related.

The first 2 in 2012

• David1350 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Jeanthefact (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Early 2015

• Ahmadreza1342 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Remot sam (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Factsheet (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Recent

• Seymour1945 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Truthabout2015 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

I haven't filed the SPI yet because you blocked Jeanthefact as LTA, so I'm wondering who the master is. Cheers, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:05, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Anna. I remember these folks and their archenemy. I'm not sure who the master is, but in April CactusWriter created Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Jeanthefact. Maybe there was some reason CactusWriter thought Jeanthefact was the master. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:01, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I'll wait to see if/how CactusWriter responds here before proceeding. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:08, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Malik and Anna. I think that I ran across this group while patrolling a G10 speedy tag on the page for User:Factreveal -- and saw an edit summary from the tagger, Tarc, that the page was created by a known "Navid Khiabani-LizCheney" troll. A quick search probably led me to User:Jeanthefact and the comments by Anna on their talk page and the obvious duck nature of this group's edits. So I tagged them and created a sock category for future information. (I set Jeanthefact as the master because it was the oldest account -- but, obviously, the David1350 account that Anna uncovered is older.) Given that more socks have arisen, I think its a good idea to create an SPI file. I found another -- User:Truthabout2014 -- today. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:01, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi CactusWriter. Thanks for the comprehensive feedback. Okay, I'll file the SPI. Also, because of the attcking nature of the drafts, and persistence, maybe an edit filter would be a good plan. Maybe User:Samwalton9 could set one up. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:42, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/David1350

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:57, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Anna. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:36, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for setting that up, Anna. I went ahead and switched the sock tags to the new puppeteer. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 02:32, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks CactusWriter. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:01, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you both! :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:37, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Admin edit war

How is it that your version of DeWayne McKnight is so much better that you are edit warring over it? You should self-revert. The Dissident Aggressor 17:29, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me? The phrase "Selected discography" is standard (and encyclopedic). "Incomplete discography", your phrase, is just WP:POINTy—as was your attempt to attribute it to me. Pull that shit again and I'll block you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:10, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Ebony Ayes for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ebony Ayes is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ebony_Ayes_(2nd_nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Per [1] you have the most edits on that article.--Savonneux (talk) 07:00, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Luca Gasparotto

Hi there.

Could you please reload this page (Luca Gasparotto) so I can edit it? He has now signed on loan with my club Morton and has played in the Scottish Championship so is eligible for a Wiki article.

Cheers. Salty1984 (talk) 22:37, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Salty1984. I'm not an expert in football, but it looks like Luca Gasparotto now satisfies the relevant notability guideline. I've unprotected the page so a new biography of Gasparotto can be written. If you'd like, I can restore the last version of the article that was deleted, but it would be preferable for somebody to write a new article. Let me know if you want the old version restored. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:40, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Cheers Malik. I've made the page and fully referenced it. Salty1984 (talk) 09:54, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

@Salty1984: - I've restored the history as well. GiantSnowman 10:41, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello Malik, thanks for your note that said 'we appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent contributions, such as your edit to the page Antisemitism, seem to be advertising or for promotional purposes.' It is correct that I try to promote by book by giving exact references to it. If you think it is not appropriate, feel free to delete them. The rationale of my promotion is to inform readers about my central points on relevant pages without having to pay for the books. Nevertheless, again, if this is not welcome, I will not continue feeding on the topics of my expertise. Best wishesSpartakus123 (talk) 11:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Brad Dyer (talk) 23:23, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Blocked for personal attacks

An experienced editor such as yourself knows that personal attacks such as this and this are completely unacceptable.

I have blocked you for 2 days. Please do not act in such an abusive fashion in the future. Chillum 23:32, 17 August 2015 (UTC)