| Revision as of 00:59, 24 July 2013 editMalik Shabazz (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers106,163 edits →Help in restoring a deleted page: reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 06:22, 24 July 2013 edit undoAfzal (talk | contribs)273 edits →Help in restoring a deleted pageNext edit → | ||
| Line 124: | Line 124: | ||
| :These are ] that weren't already in the article when it was discussed at the ]? Why didn't you add them to the article then? Why didn't you participate in the deletion discussion? — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 00:59, 24 July 2013 (UTC) | :These are ] that weren't already in the article when it was discussed at the ]? Why didn't you add them to the article then? Why didn't you participate in the deletion discussion? — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 00:59, 24 July 2013 (UTC) | ||
| Honestly I didn't know how to participate in a deletion discussion. I added the verifiable references and then I had written to the talk page of the some of the people in the discussion. After 2 days, instead of the deletion discussion in talk page, I saw a Indian School stub and College stub content. So I thought the discussion went in favor of me. Still I had the AfD tag in the page. This is a new learning for me. | |||
| == Category deleted == | == Category deleted == | ||
Revision as of 06:22, 24 July 2013
 |
|
 | Are you here because I deleted your article? Please read this before you leave me a message. |
| This is Malik Shabazz's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 5 days  |
|
Search the Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present. |
The Signpost: 17 July 2013
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Square Enix
- Traffic report: Most-viewed articles of the week
- News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation's new plans announced
- Featured content: Documents and sports
- Arbitration report: Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds case opens; July 22 deadline for checkuser and oversight applications
Template:Hindu Nationalism
Hi there! Since you're an admin so could you please, check the claim by an editor User:Linguisticgeek that the template Hindu Nationalism is a duplicate of template Sangh Parivar? Thanks, --Benfold (talk) 13:15, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Benfold. While there appears to be a great deal of overlap between the two templates, they are not exact duplicates of one another. You might want to consider merging them, or clarifying how they differ from one another.
- Also, please do not edit war over a speedy deletion tag. Instead, explain your viewpoint on the template's Talk page. An administrator will review the Talk page before considering speedy deletion. — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 01:10, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- I didn't see any deletion contest message in the tag and it also mention that the template will be automatically deleted if remain for 7 days so i rushed. Anyways, i'm sorry for that and already apologized to the user with whom i was involved. Thanks once again. --Benfold (talk) 04:10, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
24.224.214.165
I regret to inform you that 24.224.214.165 has, in your words, "purposefully and blatantly harass" me once again. --GHcool (talk) 00:56, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads up. The IP has been blocked. — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 01:03, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Helfer's book
Regarding Malcolm X: The "style" of a book should not necessarily be an impediment to it being a reliable source. The publisher is MacMillan, according to this page. MacMillan should be a good publisher so Helfer's book should be treated as an RS. Also, I'm sure this information is also available in other sources. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:40, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- In Wolfenstein (E. Victor Wolfenstein, The Victims of Democracy: Malcolm X and the Black Revolution), p. 197 it talks about how "Sophia" and her sister assisted the scheme and it discusses the planning involved. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:45, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Reception
Erm, about this edit, "Reception" refers to both praise and criticism, from the public and from other reviewers/figures. IMO it's a far better title. Usually the best articles don't segregate criticism into a single section, but instead mix it throughout the article. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:59, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, but in this article it's a criticism section. The book's reception included a Pulitzer prize. When you add positive reviews of the book and discussion of its awards, it might be appropriate to rename the section. — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 21:02, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure such sections in film articles have the same title "reception" even if the reception to the said film was overwhelmingly poor. This isn't an FA, but consider Baby_Geniuses#Reception. Baby Geniuses had an overwhelmingly negative reception, and yet the article has this title. For that matter, Malik, I just found that the editor in chief of The Root liked the book, and while I haven't found a review from him, he declined to publish a negative review of the book. This was apparent in the title of one of the articles being cited. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:09, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- My point isn't that the book's reception was negative, but that the selection of what to put in that section has been. Titling it "Reception" gives undue weight to a few critics and ignores the overwhelming critical consensus that Marable had written a very good historical work. — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 21:13, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- In that case the voices of the critics who believe he wrote a very good historical work, and those of the critics who believe that it wasn't a good book need to be put together in the same section. I'm fleshing out the detail on what Gates said about the book. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:15, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you :) - In fact I found the WaPo summarized things saying that most reviews were "far more positive than Evanzz's" WhisperToMe (talk) 22:06, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- No, thank you. — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 22:14, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you :) - In fact I found the WaPo summarized things saying that most reviews were "far more positive than Evanzz's" WhisperToMe (talk) 22:06, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- In that case the voices of the critics who believe he wrote a very good historical work, and those of the critics who believe that it wasn't a good book need to be put together in the same section. I'm fleshing out the detail on what Gates said about the book. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:15, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- My point isn't that the book's reception was negative, but that the selection of what to put in that section has been. Titling it "Reception" gives undue weight to a few critics and ignores the overwhelming critical consensus that Marable had written a very good historical work. — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 21:13, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Using book reviews to help guide Misplaced Pages editors
One trick that might help is to make note of what book reviews say, and then post it in the talk page on that book. As an example, see: Talk:Deng Xiaoping and the Making of Modern China - By noting the nuances about the book, and the claims that reviewers think are valid or invalid, it can help Wikipedians better utilize that source WhisperToMe (talk) 00:58, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
- That's a good idea. — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 21:12, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Page Editing Request --Update
Dear Malik:
Thanks for making the changes to the Sharpton bio.
Dear Malik:
I am new to Wiki-editing and requesting changes be made to the ] wiki page. I have formally requested a semi-protected edit on the Sharpton page and have written the changes to be made with well documented sources.
See: ]
I am sure the public would appreciate and benefit from the full facts coming to life.
Megalisten (talk) 13:46, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
About GabeMc
About me harassing this user? He's the one who's been harassing me around Misplaced Pages, also bad mouthing me too. He's been passive aggressively bullying me for a long time. I've been nice to him before now and I explained that I'm a newbie to being a Misplaced Pages editor, yet he's displayed hostility toward me. Hope we can settle this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeddman123 (talk • contribs) 21:16, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
- He has asked you repeatedly not to post on his Talk page. Please respect his wishes.
- If you feel he's been harassing you, please indicate where and I'll look into it. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 21:20, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
- This is one of the same Beatles sock/trolls from last summer, IMO. E.g., User:Plant's Strider, User:GeezerB, User:Chowkatsun9 et al. They won't be able to point you to any diffs where I was even rude to them. This is a regurgitation of the same false claims that this "person" made last summer. I wouldn't waste too much time with them Malik, since time-wasting is really the only reason they are here and if I am correct, then they will not stop until this account is indeffed anyway. I'm pretty sure I know who this is, but the only connection that will be made will be to Plant's Strider, if anybody. GabeMc 21:34, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
- Oh my God, PLEASE leave me alone, I'm not a sock account and I have NO idea what you're talking about, I'm completely new here. What can I do to get you off my back? You're really starting to irritate me. Also ironically your page says that you're against cyber bullying, when you're doing it to me? Please for the last time leave me alone, I never want to speak to you again. You're also just jumping to conclusions without any evidence. Don't think you can throw your weight around because you've made many contributions to Misplaced Pages articles. You sir ARE in fact more of a bully than you make me out to be. Now again, please provide some evidence that I'm some "sock" account of kindly drop this silly argument. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeddman123 (talk • contribs) 22:25, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Help in restoring a deleted page
Dear Malik, Assalamu Alaikkum
I am a novice in Wiki world. i had created a few articles and one of my article on ACE College of Engineering got deleted. I am confused on how to go further. I couldn't understand the related docs on AfD and Speedy Deletion. I request you kind help as an experience Wiki patron to guide me restore the page.
Afzal (talk) 18:41, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Afzal. In order to qualify for an encyclopedia article, a subject must be "notable". Please see WP:CORP, the relevant notability guideline.
- The consensus among the editors who commented at the article's deletion discussion was that ACE College of Engineering doesn't satisfy WP:CORP and therefore doesn't qualify for a Misplaced Pages article. If you believe ACE College of Engineering satisfies WP:CORP, please let me know and we can discuss the steps you can take to try to have the article restored. — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 21:35, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Dear Malik,
Thank you for your quick reply. I have verifiable recognition references and other secondary resources as proof of validity and notability. Please let me know what I have to do to get back the deleted page. Thanks Again
Afzal (talk) 00:43, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
- These are reliable sources that weren't already in the article when it was discussed at the AfD discussion? Why didn't you add them to the article then? Why didn't you participate in the deletion discussion? — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 00:59, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Honestly I didn't know how to participate in a deletion discussion. I added the verifiable references and then I had written to the talk page of the some of the people in the discussion. After 2 days, instead of the deletion discussion in talk page, I saw a Indian School stub and College stub content. So I thought the discussion went in favor of me. Still I had the AfD tag in the page. This is a new learning for me.
Category deleted
Hi Shabaz, you have deleted the category 2nd-century BC Hindu temples. I realised this while adding this category to an ancient temple. Could you restore the category, as it is no longer empty. -Ambar (talk) 19:04, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Done —