User talk:Malik Shabazz/Archive 48

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 47 Archive 48 Archive 49

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)

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)

@Sweeeedishfish: (talk page stalker) The page was actually deleted under G11 for advertising or promotion. You can click Spotahome for the whole log. Since I never saw the article, I do not know about the situation. Piguy101 (talk) 14:10, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I deleted Spotahome because it was promotional in tone. If Spotahome satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines, please write a new article by summarizing in your own words what reliable sources have written about it. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 14:11, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Al-Aqsa Mosque

Asalaam alaikum, i am new to making all these could you please change the word "mosque" to "masjid", and add (pbuh) after the name of prophet. thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fatimazahra12 (talkcontribs) 02:52, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Asalaam alaikum. On English-language Wikipedia, we use the common English word "mosque" instead of masjid. Also, it is against the rules here to add pbuh after Muhammad's name. Please see WP:PBUH. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:57, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Request for Comment

I'm sorry for bothering you, but no one seems to care. Do you mind offering opinion in Afd:Progressive Judaism (Israel).מהמברטה (talk) 12:59, 8 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) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexSpancer (talkcontribs)

Levan Jibladze was deleted because it was copied and pasted from another website in violation of copyright law. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 14:08, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
ok Malik and what i have to do? i mean create Leo Jee or Levan Jibladze article... i need levan jibladzes new biography ?--Best Regards 06:27, 8 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexSpancer (talkcontribs)
The problem is that Levan Jibladze / Leo Jee doesn't satisfy Wikipedia's notability guideline, WP:MUSICBIO. If you create another biography about him (your seventh), it will be deleted. And you will probably be blocked. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 15:59, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

North Pacific Marine Science Organization deletion

Sir, I am writing about the need to restore a page for the North Pacific Marine Science Organization. The reason for deletion was G12. I can imagine that the originator of this page simply cut and pasted material from our website, and that may have been the apparent offense.

I was, until I retired earlier this year, the Deputy Executive Secretary of the Organization. After I retired, I was asked by the Executive Secretary to see about getting this page restored and updated, including writing new material should that be required. I have retained an email address at the organization ( (talk) 18:45, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I can't restore the old page because of the copyright violation, but you should feel free to write a new article about the North Pacific Marine Science Organization. The best way to write a Wikipedia article is to summarize in your own words what reliable sources have written about a subject. Good luck. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:56, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Jorge Elorza

Hi! This is just to let you know that, despite what you've written immediately above this, I think you may have inadvertently have restored a possible copyvio at Jorge Elorza. As far as I can see, that was tagged by CorenSearchBot, and then speedy-deleted by Bbb23 with two criteria, of which the second was G12. It seems to me that the article is still a partial copyvio, so I've listed it at WP:CP for processing. Of course I can't see the previous version, so I may be way off here. Thank you for all the good stuff you do. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:34, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Malik, I deleted it again per G12. It's almost straight from the guy's website. There are perhaps a couple of sentences that haven't been copied verbatim. It can't remain in that condition.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:30, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Hey, I'm going off-wiki for a while shortly, Malik. If you believe my deletion was wrong, feel free to take whatever action you think is appropriate. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:45, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Sorry about that. I guess I should have checked whether the second version of the article was substantially different from the first. Thanks for taking care of it, Bbb23. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:21, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks to both. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 07:41, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Reverted edit

Hello there Malik, I made an edit to a utorrent page [[1]] some while ago and it was reverted by you because of a "not reliable source". I believe the source I used was the most reliable one, since it was the own utorrent's forum page. I cared to provide the link and access date on my edit. But, But I am here to help and improve. That's why I also bothered to bother you a little and understand the reasons of your action.

Thanks, Fellipe Salomon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fellipesalomon (talkcontribs) 18:36, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:Identifying reliable sources, particularly the section titled "Self-published sources (online and paper)". Internet forums, by their nature, are user-generated and self-published and therefore considered unreliable on Wikipedia. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:01, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Opposing your recent suggestion

Hi Malik: I have noted as follows at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#History of the Jews in X articles: Keep the current naming system because Jewish history and Jews and Judaism ARE NOT the same thing!!! and the parent category of Category:Jewish history, with Category:Jewish history by country covers everything including Jews, Judaism, and any related topics that impact Jewish history. There are a few cases where some articles and topics overlap but 90% of the time "History of the Jews in ____" is specific to and covers the Jewish history in that country/city/location PERFECTLY FINE! To change the current naming system would also create massive confusion with the categories because there are distinct and clear categories for Category:Judaism that deals with religious topics such as Category:Synagogues, and Category:Jews that deals with lists and names of Jews, many not even connected to Judaism or to Jewish history. With the current name of "History of the Jews in ___" it connects to and includes things like Category:The Holocaust and other topics, such as relations with Israel and other countries and topics that are historical topics and not related to the religion of Judaism, or to Jews as such, sometimes it is more indirect, and from the point of view of those GENTILES (not Jews and not connected to Judaism either!) who caused it, so it is not about Jews either but its about the Nazis and their antisemitism for example. Indeed Category:Antisemitism does NOT fit neatly into "Judaism" (unless when discussed as part of theology) or only "Jews" (nothing to do with various categories of Jews by ancestry) either but is a perfect topic when in Jewish history. The current system is NOT broken, so please do not try to "fix" it. Thank you, kind regards and Shabbat Shalom, IZAK (talk) 21:53, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 July 2014

Wagner Santos Lago

Oh - just noticed you had restored this. Thanks ... BTW your 5-day erase time on your talk page may be a bit quick. Personally I often don't have a chance to check out this website more than once a week ... and often less. Nfitz (talk) 22:32, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


Hi Malik, seems another IP with a one tract mind has surfaced. [2] Lazyfoxx (talk) 23:04, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Reverted and warned. Thanks for the heads up. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:57, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Kaizal walter guscott foster

Hi you may not know me but i'm the guy that you deleted his page. Ok look here i'm just a student trying to come to the outside world where there are things which i don't know know yet and i'm just trying to make people understand me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaizalfoster (talkcontribs) 01:40, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

In order to qualify for an encyclopedia article, a person must be "notable". Please see WP:BIO, our notability guideline. If you don't satisfy the notability requirements, you can't have a Wikipedia article. Don't feel bad, though; most editors don't qualify. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:00, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Israeli Arab/Palestinian redundancy

Rula Jebreal

Describing an individual as Israeli Arab AND Palestinian does not make sense for three reasons:

1. Israeli and Palestinian citizenships (State of Israel and Palestinian Authority) are in all but exceptional cases mutually exclusive, so describing someone as both Israeli and Palestinian does not make sense from a citizenship/nationality perspective - someone reading the article as it stands might be confused about which passports the individual holds. 2. To the extent "Palestinian" is used as an ethnic designation, the article is redundant for a reader who subscribes to Palestinian nationalist principles: for those readers, being an Israeli Arab means being Palestinian. 3. Many individuals with Israeli citizenship who are not Israeli Jews (e.g. Druze, Circassians, Armenians) who nevertheless speak Arabic may not identify with the Palestinian nation, so selective use of a self-selecting ethnic designations like "Palestinian" does not conform to Wikipedia's policy of describing individuals based on objective facts. Describing any Israeli Arab individual as "Palestinian" reflects a subjective nationalist description of an individual, not an objective one. If Wikipedia describes Rula Jebreal as "Palestinian," then, in order to maintain consistency, it would have to describe Druze Israelis who reject Palestinian nationalism as specifically NOT Palestinian, which would be silly. People can subscribe to a variety of self-selected ethnic identities in the United States, Israel, or elsewhere - what matters for a repository of facts like Wikipedia, and for a header section of an article that is supposed to give the reader a set of objective facts, is what an individual's state status is, not what they or other people say about their ethnicity.

If, as an administrator, you bring a political, national, or religious bias to Wikipedia, that is unfortunate - Rula Jebreal holds Israeli and Italian citizenship, not PA citizenship, so describing her as Palestinian without qualification or attribution is in the most objective and simple terms, an expression of opinion, not fact. If she has described herself as Palestinian, it might make sense to quote her as having said that, but going further amounts to supplementing the facts with a subjective skew on her actual national status.

2604:2000:12C1:61C3:4C:8DED:36A2:9E22 (talk) 02:35, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

It's not your place to decide how people define themselves. Stop removing the material. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:42, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I though Wikipedia was about facts, not how people define themselves. I could publicly define myself as a walrus - does that make me one from Wikipedia's perspective? Aside from Israeli Arabs/Palestinians, what other ethnic minorities are afforded to opportunity to have their self-designated identities included in a Wikipedia header that purports to describe their nationality? You're making an unjustified exception that does not subscribe to any rule or rationale- its not your place to decide which national minority get to plead their cause through Wikipedia, regardless of how their might prefer to be identified. Kurds with Turkish citizenship live in Turkey, nor Kurdistan, right? I'm sticking to the objective facts - Rula Jebreal does not hold, nor has she ever held a Palestinian passport. That she chooses to reject Israeliness on a cultural or national level is not Wikipedia's business as long as Wikipedia is purporting to identify her citizenship or nationality. Rula's status as a Palestinian is aspirational from a national or ideological point of view, not based in fact. She has no documents to show it, so it doesn't belong in the header. If her Palestinian identity is not connected to a quote or has some attribution, its not an honest statement of the facts. (talk) 03:10, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Stop deleting sourced material from the encyclopedia or you will be blocked. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:13, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Just because its sourced doesn't mean it belongs in the header - an opinion might be sourced but if its presented alongside fact it might be mistaken as such. If you don't see a problem with this page, then you shouldn't have a problem with someone adding sourced material from Israeli Druze politicians vociferously denying that they are Palestinian. My argument is totally sound and blocking me will accomplish nothing for your agenda. Have at it. (talk) 03:20, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Stereotypes of African Americans

Hello, I would appreciate it if you would not delete information simply because you are not "happy" with it. For example, in the the following page you reverted my edits even though they are completely relevant.

Again, if you have a legitimate reason for reverting please list it or better yet, edit the article to improve it. Don't go around wikipedia deleting relevant entries simply because you do not "agree" with them.


John5246 (talk) 17:42, 16 July 2014 (UTC)John

Hello John. The material you added was already in the article or it was unsourced. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

The way it is now is fine. You can't expect those entries to be "sourced" they are common stereotypes.

John5246 (talk) 18:03, 16 July 2014 (UTC)john5246

Toy Connor

Hello Malik Shabazz. Thanks for your message. Re: Toy Connor Wiki Page, It should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because... I am the original Author and Copyright owner of this work. The Vimeo account is my account as well. What are the steps to prove my authenticity? I look forward to your response. BSEMedia (talk) 20:47, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Please see WP:IOWN and follow the instructions on that page if you wish to contribute the copyrighted text to Wikipedia. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:57, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Reform Judaism, Progressive Judaism etc.

Hello Malik, I'm sorry for bothering you, especially since I'm about to bombard your talkpage. I'm from wiki.he, where we've recently cleaned the mess regarding non-Orthodox forms of Judaism. You're a JTS graduate, I see, and that makes you an ideal candidate for contacting in this matter. I gather that about five-to-seven years ago there were heavy quarrels on this subject: from one side, a group of 'Progressive Judaism' advocates who knew little about theology or religion but had a taste for making many an article titled 'Progressive Judaism (country X)'; from the other, our committed Orthodox users. It resulted in a horrible mess: the article Progressive Judaism until recently stated that Reconstructionist leaders took part in the 1928 foundation of the WUPJ, unaware that they didn't exist back then; there are articles like German Reform movement (Judaism), which reads like an elementary school paper; etc. I would like to cut through all that and set things straight. But first I'd like to explain my approach (I don't know if you've studied the history of Reform Judaism): there was a philosophical/religious school which developed in Germany in the 1830-1840s, mainly led by Abraham Geiger, and guided by the concept of progressive revelation, universalized Messianism, the supremacy of the ethical aspects of Judaism to its ritual ones, etc. This school continued to the U.S., under the influence of David Einhorn, Kaufmann Kohler and so on, all 'Geigerians'. In Britain, there was Claude G. Montefiore, an ardent follower of Geiger's ideas with little twists of his own. These three groups united in 1928 to form the WUPJ; they had earlier background, of course, and spontaneous Reform took place in Charleston and other places, but that's the big picture, especially from a theological point of view. There are several other groups in the WUPJ (NOT Reconstructionists), mostly founded by the original trio: France's tiny Liberal movement, Netherlands' Liberals founded by the WUPJ from scratch, Israel's Reform group also coming from outside, and most notably there's Reform Judaism (United Kingdom) which lacked a real ideological basis or a substantial following until the immigration of German refugees in the 1930's and its joining with Montefiore's successors to form a single seminary in 1956. Now - and again forgive my incessant rambling on your talk page - this world movement (MINUS Reconstructionists) should be described under a single article that we probably can call Reform Judaism - Progressive would have been ideal had not the reco. joined the WUPJ - or maybe Liberal, but still a single base article (maybe with a sub-'History of Reform Judaism' article), with links to local denominations etc., listed by their official congregational names and not 'Progressive Judaism (x)'. Is this premise acceptable to you?מהמברטה (talk) 20:02, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Shalom מהמברטה. Your suggestion seems fine. Just to clarify, I studied at JTS but never graduated.
Feel free to post here if you'd like, or you can post at WT:JUDAISM, where I'll see it (but probably be slower to respond). — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:13, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Miss Austria 2014

The Miss Austria article states that the titleholder is Julia Furdea. However, if it is your judgment that this does not constitute a blatant hoax, I am satisfied to let the PROD run its course. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:34, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't have that bit of information. Nothing about Nadine Stroitz screamed hoax, and when I did a Google search of her name, plenty of pages about Miss Austria came up. I've deleted the article. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
That was a problem with the Twinkle template. I would have included that information if there had been a space available in the template. If a search on Miss Austria 2014 did turn her name up, then I would assume that Nadine Stroitz competed for the title and lost to Julia Furdea. BTW, you may have noticed that there is a thread at WP:ANI about the article creator, who is repeatedly introducing false information about beauty contests. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:49, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I noticed the AN/I thread when I deleted the article. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:say on Slavery in the United States

You recently changed the word "note" to "say" on the Slavery in the United States page. According to the source from Roger Ransom, Gunderson "notes that the two are roughly the same order of magnitude — 2.5 to 3.7 billion dollars." The language I used in the article is consistent with the source/sources that the information came from and changing "note" to "say" misrepresents the carefulness Roger Ransom took when choosing his diction.

WP:Say is a guideline for editors to be careful not to interject their own POV when writing articles in WP voice. This was not the case with the use of the word "note". I changed the language to reflect Ransom's source and used a direct quote to prevent other people from being confused about whether the change was inline with WP:SAY.Scoobydunk (talk) 03:50, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Your previous addition had "note" in Wikipedia's voice, which is contrary to the Manual of Style. I see that you've changed it to a direct quote now. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 15:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 July 2014

Caine Ward

All I could find was self-releases (for example his MP3 material on Amazon) rather than anything solid to indicate Universal/Polydor affiliation? AllyD (talk) 19:32, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I may have assumed too much good faith. I've deleted the article. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:35, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Melady app


I recently saw your deletion of this article and I don't believe it met the criteria for G11. It seems the only sentence in the article was neturally worded, despite being created by a COI account. In this situation, I believe the A7 criteria for web content would have been applicable. Best, Mike VTalk 19:53, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Mike. I guess you're right. Face-smile.svg — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:57, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Akashdeep S Batth

Thanks for the note. The article had no text at the time just a picture and a box which is why I nominated it. Good to see that it has been improved. Capitalistroadster (talk) 04:37, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Query about talk page contents of deleted page

Was there any response from Lady Lotus on the deleted talk page of Livia Firth to my points raised? She was really quite unpleasant in her edit summary and I'd like to know if the conversation went anywhere after I raised my objections. Mabalu (talk) 00:52, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, I believe that the page may well have been inappropriately deleted in the first place as it was not brought to the attention of at least one relevant Wikiproject when it originally came up for discussion - a point I raised on the talk page. Not that I'm bothered enough to recreate it but I do object to being screamed at hysterically by someone claiming I'm breaking rules that don't even appear to exist, and I would appreciate a detailed response to all the points I raised on the talk page. I realise I'm probably not owed any explanation, but well, it would still be appreciated. Mabalu (talk) 00:59, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello Mabalu. User:Lady Lotus didn't reply to your messages at Talk:Livia Firth. I agree with you that one need not be an admin in order to remove a speedy deletion tag—any editor except the page creator may do it. By my action, though, it should be clear that I agree with her that the "new" article about Ms. Firth was substantially the same as the old one, and it did not address the issues raised in the AfD discussion.
As to the matter of why some WikiProjects were notified about the AfD and others were not, it is usually a function of the WikiProjects to which an article has been assigned on its Talk page. Livia Giuggioli was tagged as part of WikiProject Biography (Actors and Filmmakers), WikiProject Italy, and WikiProject London. Perhaps if she had been tagged as part of WikiProject Fashion, that WikiProject might have been notified of the deletion discussion. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:40, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. As I never saw the original page, I couldn't comment on that aspect of it, the version I saw looked like a fine article to me apart from the bare URLs and I'd double-checked the sources when she was suggested on Requested Articles to reassure myself that despite the previous deletion, she was notable enough for an article. So when I saw it, I thought it must be a completely new article as I couldn't see why the original article, if it looked like that, would have been deleted. But thanks for the response. Mabalu (talk) 10:42, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
In response to all of this, yes I was incorrect when I said only admins can remove the tag but at the same time, you had no reason to remove it in the first place stating "I really do not believe this is cause for speedy deletion" when it clearly was. "Screamed at hysterically" is a little much, I used caps because I wanted you to read that you can't remove the tags just because you don't want the page being deleted when it was grounds for speedy delete. It is not my responsibility to tag the AfD with appropriate WikiProjects but whoever does tag it does it to the best of their ability with what they think is the proper tags. She was tagged with the tags Malik Shabazz mentioned, so it's not like nobody had the option to comment. LADY LOTUSTALK 11:12, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
LADY LOTUS, there's a reason Wikipedia automatically tags edits composed of block capitals as "shouting." Deny it, but you DID give the impression of shouting - such is the impression given by a long string of text in shrieking block capitals. Which was needless. The point is that it was not tagged for at least one Wikiproject it should have been tagged in, which was probably an oversight, lots of pages on here are not tagged with the WPs they should be on. I was intending to try and fix the article, which was why I removed the tags (and subsequently got "politely informed" in aforementioned screeching block capitals that I was in the wrong and breaking non-existent rules), but I actually had real life stuff to do, so of course, it was deleted. Shame, because ecological design/fashion is really underrepresented on Wikipedia, and I saw sources to indicating that she is a recognised advocate/public speaker for eco design, without reference to her husband. I had hoped my arguments might at least give the page a stay of execution, just to give a chance for fixes to be attempted, especially when one of the other people was giving the impression of shouting and not assuming good faith. Mabalu (talk) 13:42, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Then take it up with Gene93k, who was the one who tagged the AfD. It was deleted because it was a recreate of an article that was deleted just months ago. It's the whole point of AfD is to delete articles that are not notable enough for one, so to recreate it is just a backwards step. Like I have said in the previous deletion discussion and on the talk page before it was deleted, the references on the page were more about her company and being Colin Firth's wife. And notability isn't inherited. If you made a page about the company, Eco-Green or whatever it is, I'm sure it meets WP:GNG and wouldn't nominate it for deletion. She, however, wasn't notable enough for one. LADY LOTUSTALK 13:48, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

The Journal

I don't understand why 'The Journal' Wikipage was deleted, it wasn't fake nor was I copyrighting anyone, I put time and effort in creating that. The site was — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

The two articles about the film The Journal were copied and pasted from the film's website in violation of copyright law. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Malik, that's because I'm the site owner and creator. I wrote the content for the website. So I want to use it for the wiki page too. Why doesn't anyone ask first before deleting the 4 hour work I did. So simple to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:IOWN and follow the instructions on that page if you'd like to contribute the copyrighted text to Wikipedia. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 16:59, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Why did you delete my Investor Conversion Specialist article?

This is a burgeoning position in the Investor Relations space and wondered why you took it down? Should I provide more content/ context in my article? Thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SeanMD56 (talkcontribs) 17:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

A Google search indicated that there is no such thing as an "investor conversion specialist". — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:12, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 July 2014


User Evildoer187, has returned to Wikipedia and has violated his topic ban. This ip belongs to him and he is using it to avoid his topic ban. He states in this edit summary that it belongs to him. Can you permanently block this ip since it appears to be attached to him and no other computer? If not what can be done? Thanks! [User:AcidSnow|AcidSnow]] (talk) 17:44, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I have decided to report this to an admin that was involved in the case. Thank you for the possible help anyways. AcidSnow (talk) 17:55, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Ford Mondeo

Hi, thanks for deleting the Ford Mondeo (second generation) page so the page move could be performed [3]. To save time, I would like to please request that you also do the following to finish the job in one go (it would otherwise require me to nominate each page step-by-step over a few days):

Cheers, OSX (talkcontributions) 23:58, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done Please check that any incoming links are working properly. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 00:19, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for that, I will check. Cheers OSX (talkcontributions) 01:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


Hello, I was hoping to make a page about Beenzino and the notice said I should contact you. I believe my draft User:Asdklf;/Beenzino fulfills the obligations of A7. Thank you for your time. Asdklf; (talk) 02:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC)Asdklf;

Hi. The key question about Beenzino is whether he is notable. See WP:MUSICBIO for the relevant notability guidelines. It appears Beenzino qualifies, so you can go ahead and move the draft to Beenzino. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:57, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

2012 Robocup 2D Soccer Simulation League

Robocup 2D Soccer Simulation League is part of the main event of Robotics in the entire world. It is a serious competition that happens every year in different countries. A wiki containing all information about this event is extremely necessary because it contains data about teams and everything that happens in the event. These data help others team to improve their quality to the next championships.

Again, this is the main event of robotics and artificial intelligence in the whole world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadowhunter777 (talkcontribs) 01:13, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

In order to qualify for an encyclopedia article, a subject must be "notable". Please read WP:N, our notability guideline. There was no indication that the 2012 Robocup 2D Soccer Simulation League was notable.
If the 2012 Robocup 2D Soccer Simulation League was notable, please provide me with three reliable sources that have written about it. That will help me decide whether to restore the article. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:41, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for not citing more sources first. I reckon that I should've done this. Anyway, here are some articles about RoboCup 2012.

And here is an entire book about the event: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadowhunter777 (talkcontribs) 07:05, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I've restored the article. Please add the sources to it. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:26, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadowhunter777 (talkcontribs) 02:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Palestine Map Borders

Why did you undo my correction? The dotted line on the map is dark green so the legend should correspondingly be dark-green not blue. Or am I not understanding something? Sqgl (talk) 18:11, 29 July 2014 (UTC)sqgl

I'm not sure what the dotted green line means, although it may be connected to Roman Syria Palaestina (as with the solid green line). The dotted blue line is the modern boundary of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, the State of Palestine. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:49, 29 July 2014 (UTC)


Hi!...I need your help...!!!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lycahmae (talkcontribs) 12:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to help, but I'm not a mind-reader. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:28, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Hey. ... Malik,,,,where are you from? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lycahmae (talkcontribs) 12:45, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I live in Washington, D.C. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:21, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


hey, Mr.Malik Shabazz,why you favor of Israel?? Palestinian are freedom fighter.they want to freedom from Israeli blockade and occupation.they are not terrorist.they are freedom fighter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minsar (talkcontribs) 06:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:NPOV, because if you continue editing the way you have been recently, you likely will be topic-banned or blocked. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 16:32, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

RfC/U on Dan56

Hey, Malik. Are you willing to certify the basis of the disputes relating to the pending RfC/U on Dan56? Harmelodix (talk) 19:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Harmelodix. I can certify the things I've witnessed, but I'm not familiar with a lot of Dan's work. If you're interested, you might want to check the edit history of User talk:GabeMc to find other editors who are dissatisfied with Dan. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:14, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for that, Malik. I looked at GabMC's page, and while it looks like he retired a while back, I did see a couple of other people that took issue with Dan56's behavior. However, I assume that it would be inappropriate to rally the concerned. Is that accurate, or should I let them know about the RfC/U? Harmelodix (talk) 16:29, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
That's a good point. You probably shouldn't canvass editors, especially since you criticize Dan for doing that. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 16:33, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


Hi, you claim to be neutral. You obviously are not when it comes to Israel. (talk) 08:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Blue Army (Poland) again

So, the RfC concluded that a statement ought to be included in the article: [4]. I went ahead and added the statement, and naturally it was reverted by User:COD T 3 who disputes the conclusion: [5]. This situation is discussed here: [6]. Any help would be appreciated. I have not yet gone to an uninvolved admin seeking a block; I'll give him a chance not to revert again. But I'm not too optimistic.Faustian (talk) 12:26, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Two (and only two) outside contributors weighed-in on the second RfC on the BA talk page. Below are their definitive statements:
  • User: Truther2012 Are there other sources confirming both rapes and scrolls? It looks like the entire very controversial statement is based on a single source. Faustian, if you feel that this statement is that important for the integrity of the article, you should be able to provide more sources. Personally, I do not see why it is so important, as most armies commit similar crimes.--Truther2012 (talk) 13:32, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
  • User: SMcCandlish I have to agree with Truther2012 that "most armies commit similar crimes", and thus insisting on levying a mass rape charge against the Blue Army is not really pertinent, as well as not actually feasible under WP:SYNTH with this particular sourcing. Please see also my how-to, WP:How to mine a source for a tutorial on how to get more information out of source material in a step-wise fashion. Regardless, you're going to need more of it than this very short, confusing partial quotation.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:11, 9 July 2014 (UTC) That seems reasonable to me. It is clearer within this larger-context quotation that the "laundry list" is in fact describing the "Jew-bating and pogroms".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  18:42, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
How anyone comes to the conclusion that this discussion yielded consensus and a mandate to add the highly controversial statement to the BA article is beyond me! User Faustian is completely unreasonable in interpreting theses statements as consensus, and by adding the disputed text, user Faustian is creating situations which are disruptive to the BA article. --COD T 3 (talk) 17:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Ah, there's nothing like a single-purpose account. COD T 3, do you get paid by the word? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
You really think that I'm out here with some kind of a agenda, I don't edit Wikipedia. But, when I came up on this non-sense in the BA article I'm not gonna let someone just demonize the BA. Atrocities happened agains the Jews, but that needs to be properly noted, not have the article written as if the BA's sole purpose was pogroming. --COD T 3 (talk) 22:25, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

African American change

Hello Malik,

I changed the African American population info to 44.5 million (or 14.2%) as according to the website. You can check it out at PLEASE undo the Warning, the information I presented was legit and proper.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karansarathy (talkcontribs) 03:13, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Next time, please cite your source so it doesn't look like vandalism. You left the US Census Department as the source, but the Census website doesn't have that information. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:17, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 July 2014

King David Hotel Bombing

Please do not undo my edit of the King David Hotel bombing. The Irgun wass obviously a terrorist organization. To call them a paramilitary or underground organization is blatant propaganda.Loki51 (talk) 08:47, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

The obstacle in your way, as Malik has already pointed out, is the Manual of Style and its list of words to watch. Use of labels such as terrorism tends to be highly subjective. If you can pick out organisations which you wouldn't see as terrorist but others would, you might see the value of the ruling given in the Manual of Style. With the KDH article, you're trying to force a change which has been brought up periodically by individual editors many times in the past. --     ←   ZScarpia   09:21, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Are you serious? Just because you (and a group of like-minded apologists) spew forth propaganda, doesn't make it fact. Obviously there is NO GROUP that EVERYONE on the planet would agree is a terrorist group. Does that mean you do not use the word terrorist? Loki51 (talk) 09:50, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
1: "Are you serious?" Yes. 2: You're trying to impose one particular viewpoint as fact, which I consider an act more worthy of being labelled 'propagandistic'. 3: Personally, I, along with what I would consider all sane sources, consider the Irgun to have been a terrorist organisation. Further, I consider the particular strain of murderous, fascistic, ethnochauvinistic nationalism which motivated it to be putrid and abhorrent. However, I don't consider I have a licence to impose my own views in that regard on Wikipedia articles in contravention of its ethos and policy. 4: "Does that mean you do not use the word terrorist?" For starters, we are concerned with what reliable sources say, not popular, or unpopular, opinion. As the saying goes, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Can you prove that there are no reliable sources that would argue that the Irgun didn't practise terrorism? Unless you can, I think that we should abide by what the Manual of Style says about using the label 'terrorism'.     ←   ZScarpia   10:57, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
As ZScarpia wrote, regardless of our opinions, we are bound by the Manual of Style. I don't think you'll find Wikipedia referring to many people or groups as terrorists in the narrative voice; instead, we write that so-and-so described them as terrorists. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:45, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
That's so absurd. I notice both of you seem to only take this stance pro-Israel. Interesting.Loki51 (talk) 20:57, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
That's not true. You'll find the same is true in articles about Palestinian militants as well. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:08, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
"I notice both of you seem to only take this stance pro-Israel." In what way? You might like to have a look at Wikipedia:Writing for the opposition. By the way, when Malik wrote, "instead, we write that so-and-so described them as terrorists," I think that he was referring to the articles on particular groups, not suggesting that it was alright to insert text stating that some country or body viewed or views that group as a terrorist organisation wherever it is mentioned in Wikipedia. These things work both ways: if you're going to go around doing that for Zionist terror organisations, then you should also do it for the many organisations and people that Jewish Israelis consider to be terrorist.     ←   ZScarpia   09:14, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Elijah Muhammad

Dear Malik Shabazz, I'll have you know that according to Louis Farrakhan and the Nation Of Islam, the Most Honorable Elijah Muhammad is indeed alive. That is why I removed the death part of his summary. You see, Mr.Muhammad is currently on the Wheel, or as others call it, a UFO. He is alive and well.

In part 51 of The Time and What Must Be Done webcast lecture series, the Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan revealed to the world an aspect of his personal faith and belief. He said that he believes that his teacher, the Most Honorable Elijah Muhammad is not dead, but is alive. In part 51, the Minister’s word were, “Brothers and sisters, since 1981 I have been saying to the world that Elijah Muhammad is not dead! He is Alive. I am saying to the world that Elijah Muhammad is “The Messiah” that The Qur’an is speaking of. I am saying to the world what The Qur’an says of The Messiah: He escaped a death plot against him. Of course, you still may hold on to your thought “Elijah Muhammad is dead”—but how could he be dead, and he speak to me on The Wheel? This is incredible…”


Smartbrainiac101 (talk) 05:00, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


That's why we rely on reliable sources such as newspapers and journals. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:12, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Marcel Hillaire

Hi Malik Shabazz,

Why did you delete the page on Marcel Hillaire? He was a notable TV character actor in the B&W days, who appeared in such shows as LOST IN SPACE, THE TWILIGHT ZONE, GET SMART, MAN FROM UNCLE, and in Woody Allen's TAKE THE MONEY AND RUN. Goblinshark17 (talk) 03:58, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Goblinshark. The first article about Hillaire was a copyright violation, and the editor who started it blanked the page. See WP:G7. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:03, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I have re-created the article, using my own words and referencing his IMDB bio. Hope that's ok! Goblinshark17 (talk) 04:08, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


I am wondering how it got edited from my account... I did not add any link or edit this page in any way... dont know how it got edited from my account... Let me know if u need any clarification... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meetpavan (talkcontribs) 12:20, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to have been edited from your account. Maybe an anonymous editor using your IP address edited it. Whatever the case, don't worry about it. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:55, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Mohammed Dajani Daoudi

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:22, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Any input would be appreciated

You were mentioned, also. Here: [7]. Faustian (talk) 23:42, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. Would you mind adding some input here, also? It looks like someone not as familiar with this longstanding situation is trying to sanction me and COD T equally, which seems very wrong: [8].Faustian (talk) 03:07, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

deletion of evidence of antisemitism

i received a message that original research to imply conclusions was not allowed, but what was deleted was instances of antisemitism occuring. Since I fail to see why a sign saying "No Jews allowed, but dogs are" being called antisemitic is drawing a conclusion from an article, I would like a non-biased editor to review this and fix the article and restore that example, thanks. A modern day no jews allowed sign absolutely belongs in the modern antisemitism page, there is no reasonable argument against that- it's modern and it's antisemitic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:59, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Also, to have an article on bigotry but refuse to allow examples of such acts is fairly ridiculous. Wikipedia articles on bias etc are typically well-supported with actual examples of such occurences. It weakens the argument of the page when there are no cited events to demonstrate what is being talked about. I feel you are intentionally attempting to undermine the article via refusing to allow a page on antisemitism to list actual instances of antisemitism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:02, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

The sources you cited simply summarize other sources and contain no original reporting. Far better to link to the original sources. One of the sources is clearly an opinion piece rather than a news source. A single sign in a shop window in Belgium and word of mouth reports of insults shouted at one Boston demonstration do not rise to the level of convincing evidence of a trend, in my view, though abhorrent as individual incidents. Your summary is not supported by the sources. Typographical errors, such as "Caucasian" and "tenet", while minor in comparison to the more substantive points, detract from the persuasiveness of your argument. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:20, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
You cite those reports as examples of "new antisemitism", but the sources didn't mention "new antisemitism". That makes your inclusion of them as examples original research, specifically synthesis, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:31, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

If it's any consolation...

Both the editor who started the RfC and another who supported it have been blocked as socks of an editor who's had a deep-seeded issue with me, thus confirming the suspicions I've had all along. Dan56 (talk) 06:45, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

You were right, and I assumed too much good faith. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:35, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
This is a gift of my appreciation! Lycahmae (talk) 13:01, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Help me to improve and restore the article Mulyashop

Hi, I have created a article Mulyashop about a new e-commerce company in India, yesterday. And its got deleted with reason A7. I have only put the factual data. Guide me how can i improve the notability or tell me about the mistakes I have made.

Binunice (talk) 14:57, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

In order to qualify for an encyclopedia article, a company must be "notable". Please read WP:COMPANY, the relevant notability guideline. Based on a Google search, it appears that Mulyashop does not satisfy the notability requirements at this time. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 16:32, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 August 2014

Porn Project RfC

I have started an RfC on the Project Talk page and invite you to comment here. Thank you, --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:48, 9 August 2014 (UTC)