| Revision as of 21:13, 20 July 2013 editMalik Shabazz (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers106,163 edits →Reception: reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:15, 20 July 2013 edit undoWhisperToMe (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users663,056 edits →ReceptionNext edit → | ||
| Line 81: | Line 81: | ||
| :::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. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 21:13, 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. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 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 need to be put together in the same section. I'm fleshing out the detail on what Gates said about the book. ] (]) 21:15, 20 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 21:15, 20 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. |
You've Deleted the page for citing copyright violation
http://en.wikipedia.org/Biogerontology_Research_Foundation We do not know how to edit Misplaced Pages and apologize for this post if it violates any of the policies. The page was deleted citing copyright violation. The Foundation is a registered UK charity supporting aging research worldwide and acting as a think tank. It regularly supports conferences and research supported by the foundation was featured in Cell, PLoS and other journals. Please reconsider. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.140.235.170 (talk) 06:04, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages cannot accept material that belongs to another website. It violates copyright law. See WP:Copyright violations.
- If you own the material and wish to contribute it to Misplaced Pages, please follow the instructions at WP:Donating copyrighted materials. — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 02:01, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Deletion review for Muhammad Agung Pribadi
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Muhammad Agung Pribadi. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MbahGondrong (talk • contribs) 17:02, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for the notification, but I don't have anything to say. — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 02:03, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
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 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)