User talk:Malik Shabazz

SEMI-RETIRED

This user is no longer very active on Wikipedia.

You're alive!

Malik, now that I have amassed 500+ nonsense edits, how will you justify your unilateral deletions of my contributions, and your rewriting of history with regard to the Arab-Israeli conflict? HistoryWrite Malik! I'm so glad to see you haven't completely abandoned ship! Please forget the nonsense of the past and come back to active editing. We all miss you. EEng (talk) 04:13, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Pinging random people to heap praise on you: Drmies, Softlavender, Liz, Cullen328, Carrite, Gerda Arendt, Belle, SlimVirgin, Hafspajen, John Carter, Newyorkbrad. EEng (talk) 04:22, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• I came, I saw, I praised... Come back strong when you're recharged, Malik! Carrite (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
• So did I, - look for peace bell above, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:46, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
• He has risen indeed. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:01, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
• My 2016 is better with Malik Shabazz around. Without a doubt. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
• I'm enormously happy to see that you've returned, Malik! Thanks to EEng for alerting me. You've been greatly missed, Malik! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
• I too had hoped that you hadn't stepped away completely and forever, so I'll join in the chorus. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:58, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
• k := k + 1; (or increment that annuity immediate, my friend!) -- Avi (talk) 18:06, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
• Welcome back! RolandR (talk) 12:43, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Thank you all. I don't know how often I'll be around, but I appreciate the warm feelings. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:25, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
• Add me to this list. (Oh, I just have done.) - Sitush (talk) 03:23, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
• Thanks for the ping, EEng. I already did, above; not much more to add to that. :-) Softlavender (talk) 03:43, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
• Nice to see your name again, Malik. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:44, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
• Wikipedia can not afford to loose quality. We have lots of quantity, but not enough quality. Carptrash (talk) 04:11, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• PRAISE TO YOU; MAN, don't you go away like this. ^{At least YOU are not hacked.} Hafspajen (talk) 14:42, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
• We can ill afford to lose people who actually know what they are doing like you. John Carter (talk) 17:01, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• Piling on, glad you are back. Doug Weller talk 17:20, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
• I'm a bit late to the party, but welcome back! Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 22:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
• Thank you for continuing to contribute. Your generosity sets a better example than any I've seen here. — Neonorange (talk) 04:33, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
• Damnit I'm late to the party! .... Well I guess late's better than never , Anyway welcome back Malik :) –Davey2010^Talk 16:24, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
• Welcome back ! One of the greatest news for the wikipedia project !!! Pluto2012 (talk) 21:19, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
• I'm finally convinced it's at least more than an occasional drop-in. Good to have you around, for however much you can tolerate. StevenJ81 (talk) 02:38, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 January 2016

• Op-ed: Lila Tretikov: the WMF needs your input in developing our strategy

• News and notes: Geshuri steps down from the Board

• In the media: Media coverage of the Arnnon Geshuri no-confidence vote

• Recent research: Bursty edits; how politics beat religion but then lost to sports; notability as a glass ceiling

• Traffic report: Death and taxes

• Featured content: This week's featured content

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:24, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Oops!

I accidentally reverted that previous edit and didn't mean to. Thanks for fixing :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:35, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

No problem. I don't know why, but sometimes that happens with Huggle. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 12:39, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I notice that too sometimes. Weird. Anyways, thanks again :-D ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:46, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

deleted Category:Women librarians

Hi Malik Shabazz, On 30 April 2014 you deleted the above cat per G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion (CSDH). There is a related discussion here - Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women where it has been suggested that the cat be created. Just wondering why it was originally deleted, and whether there is any way that we can create it without it being deleted again. thanks Coolabahapple (talk) 00:15, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Coolabahapple. Thank you for your message. Category:Women librarians was first deleted as a result of this deletion discussion. Another editor subsequently recreated the category, and I speedily deleted it under speedy deletion criterion G4, Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion.

If you're interested in recreating the category, you'll need to overcome the objections that were raised at the deletion discussion. To make sense of the discussion and the rationale for deletion, you ought to read WP:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality, particularly the section on gender. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:42, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

thanks very much Coolabahapple (talk) 04:03, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Mudar Zahran

C'mon Malik. You know better than to start an edit war with a brand new editor like this. Admittedly, I only put Mudar Zahran on my watchlist because I planned to come around an put it thru WP:AfD at some point, but as it turns out he's some sort of pundit with an actual fanbase (although you are correct in saying that sourcing that fact is difficult). Still, it is 2016, and you don't get to reject sources just because you are too lazy to put them through Google Translate. -- Kendrick7^talk 05:20, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

• Kendrick7, Malik certainly didn't start this edit war; Makeandtoss made the first revert, with some good reasons. Kindly take it back, including the "lazy" part please; I suppose you can do so by removing this entire section, which would be fine with me. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 17:20, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Kendrick7, please review the article's history more carefully. While I shouldn't have joined the edit war, making the fourth revert is hardly "start[ing] an edit war". And maybe I'm missing something, but Google Translate doesn't say anything about whether http://alsawt.net/ is a reliable source or whether the section is synthesis.
    By the way, as a participant in the edit war yourself, you ought to join the discussion I started. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:40, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

White genocide conspiracy theory

I see no reason why my addition to the "White genocide conspiracy theory" article should have been deleted.

It read:

Some supporters of the White Genocide thesis submit that Article II of the 1948 United Nations Convention on Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide defines genocide in such a way as to include intentional policies of ethnic or racial group destruction slowly over an extended period of time. Article II defines genocide as:

...any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

— Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Article 2

References

And when posted had a citation of Greg Johnson's chapter "White Genocide" in his book "Truth, Justice, & a Nice White Country," which is where the information came from, ie. a book by a white nationalist specifically on "white genocide."

Am I to assume that no actual sources from the people who generated the theory in question are going to be allowed on the article? Seems dishonest. Especially when the "Black Genocide" wiki article appears to be rife with supporting evidence. Not to mention that I find it funny to have it deleted by someone bearing the name of a black nationalist. What gives?

Sincerely, Elkanah — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElkanahTingley (talk • contribs)

• ElkanahTingley, kindly refrain from personal attacks; Malik's user name is immaterial. As for your edit, it's pretty obvious that the book you cite is not a reliable source; see WP:RS. That's really all there is to it. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 18:47, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
• And to answer the OP's question... No, in general the sources originally promulgating a new theory would not be used as sources on that theory, because they are WP:PRIMARY sources for that purpose. In general, discussion of a theory would rely on secondary sources discussing the theory's signficance, placing it in historical context, etc.

And as already mentioned, resist reading dark motives into people's usernames, unless you want some static about your username being ridiculously that of "the son of Jeroham, who was the son of Elihu, who was the son of Tohu, who was the son of Zuph". EEng 19:23, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, ElkanahTingley, and thank you for your message. As EEng indicated, the use of primary sources is discouraged on Wikipedia. In addition, the use of a self-published source—Greg Johnson's chapter in a book published by a press (Counter-Currents Publishing) he controls—is also a no-no. You need to find a secondary source that describes the alleged connection between the Genocide Convention and the white genocide theory in order to include it in the article.

I quickly reviewed the sources at Black genocide and they all seem to be secondary sources except footnote 37, the transcript of a Congressional hearing. If you see any primary sources that appear to be problematic, please let me know or leave a message at Talk:Black genocide. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:02, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. The main difficulty is going to be finding secondary sources for this topic. I don't think it's too controversial to say that the kinds of sources that would be best are not out there for the topic. "Black genocide" will get mentioned by academics and discussed in depth. "White genocide" will get a snarky mention in a news article, maybe, and it will be very briefly summed up as being crazy. Very little in-depth treatment of the subject. Plus, there is a line in the reliable sources that mentions that "sources judged to be extremist" should not be included either. So who knows what we can do with that.

Would it be possible to add information regarding population decline in Europe/the West, mass immigration into the West, abortion, birth control, possibly farm murders in South Africa, and other issues that those promulgating the "white genocide" theory often cite? I could find sources for things like that, but they won't be mentioning "white genocide" explicitly in any of them, obviously. Is that fair? ElkanahTingley (talk) 03:19, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi ElkanahTingley. Wikipedia's policy against "original research" usually doesn't allow that. That policy says (in part):

To demonstrate that you are not adding [original research], you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented.

Sources that don't mention white genocide might not be considered "directly related" to the subject of white genocide. To be on the safe side, I would recommend asking about specific sources at Talk:White genocide conspiracy theory or WP:No original research/Noticeboard. That would give a larger number of editors the opportunity to evaluate your proposed sources. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:39, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

My initial reaction to this would be that the entire page should probably just be scrapped seeing as how there's nothing that can be added that will meet the criteria since pretty much NO secondary sources will mention the words "white genocide" and elucidate the arguments given by proponents of the theory.

On the other hand, it would be great if a secondary source discussing the population decline of Europe and how quickly those ethnic European populations will be reduced to minorities there could be used. That's as "directly related" as it's going to get on this subject from secondary sources. But, of course, the word "genocide" will NEVER be used and so I am sure it won't pass the test. I'll give it a whirl. ElkanahTingley (talk) 04:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Tel aviv shooting attacks

Hi Malik, a while ago you removed the edit I made to the article: list of Islamic terror attacks. Here is a reliable source that the attacker was motivated by "Islamic State: Please read and I would really really appreciate it if you return my entry:

http://www.timesofisrael.com/tel-aviv-terrorist-took-bus-home-planned-second-attack/

Thank you.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dont belittle245 (talk • contribs) 16:44, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Dont belittle245, did you even read the article? It doesn't say anything about the shooter's motivation or that he was an Islamist. In fact, it says the Shin Bet did not link him to the Islamic State. Sorry.

Please take further discussion of this matter to Talk:List of Islamist terrorist attacks or WP:No original research/Noticeboard. Thank you. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:37, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

This is for mshabaz: I have difficulty using Wikipedia so I'll leave a copy here as well as I'm not sure whether you will see it on the other page.

This is a quote from the article proving that the shooter in Tel Aviv was influenced by IS:

According to the Shin Bet, Milhem abandoned the taxi on a road in northern Tel Aviv, and used public transportation to get to the Wadi Ara region of his hometown. Before fleeing Tel Aviv, Melhem hung a banner on a rooftop on which he wrote “Daesh,” the Arabic acronym for the Islamic State (IS), and another marked “There is no god but God and Mohammed is the messenger of God”, the Shin Bet told AFP..

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dont belittle245 (talk • contribs) 19:46, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I've replied at Talk:List of Islamist terrorist attacks#Tel Aviv shootings. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:57, 2 February 2016 (UTC)