Misplaced Pages

User talk:Malik Shabazz

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 01:01, 10 August 2014 (Archiving 2 discussion(s) to User talk:Malik Shabazz/Archive 48) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 01:01, 10 August 2014 by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) (Archiving 2 discussion(s) to User talk:Malik Shabazz/Archive 48) (bot)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

User:Malik Shabazz/Tabs

User talk
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.

CRT on the Supreme Court

Hi Malik, Your improvements to the critical race theory page caught my attention. To my interest, my research has turned up that Sonia Sotomayor was strongly influenced by CRT some years ago and is the only one on the Supreme Court with this in her history. During the last week, I have been adding material from 3 new books on the Roberts court to her page and am almost done. Because of her unique background, I thought to ask you if the article is anywhere close to an upgrade by peer evaluation. She would be the first woman on the Supreme Court to reach the highest level of peer evaluation at Misplaced Pages. Possibly you could give the article a once over when/if time allows to let me know if this unique judge deserves this attention. I ask this only if this field is of interest to you and if time allows. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 00:29, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Lawrence. I'll try to take a look at Sonia Sotomayor in the next week or so, but my schedule is tight and I may not be able. You might want to request a review at WP:Peer review. — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 02:46, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 12:25, 19 July 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 76.117.143.113 (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. Misplaced Pages 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 76.117.143.113 (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. Cullen 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 Misplaced Pages. — Malik Shabazz /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 /Stalk 20:35, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

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 /Stalk 16:32, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 August 2014

Advise on potential problem

Hi Malik, I'd like to get your input on a situation. Recently when I discovered that a User has been removing material from several porn star articles I posted this notice on their page . Then when I began to add back the sourced material and , the User began immediately reverting and respectively.

Am I correct in my interpretation and Notability is for articles and not sources? Furthermore, these are statements of fact cited to a non-self published source. Lastly, the User calls the source Primary when its clearly a collection of biographies written by a 3rd party.

At this point, I don't know whether to take this matter to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard or the BLP Noticeboard or another similar venue. I'm not sure if this is about content, a source, or editor behavior. Your thoughts and recommendations are appreciated. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:23, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

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)

Hungry Jews

ADL estimates Jewish Hungarian population to be 100,000 so does the Jerusalem Post and the Forward. Now the so-called report takes into account core population only: "A Jewish survey in 1999 reported a conspicuously larger enlarged Jewish population than expected The enlarged Jewish population in Hungary is assessed at about 85,000 in 2012". Can you elaborate on why exactly do you think this old report from the year 2012 is so sacredly true while a report from World Jewish Congress, that also happen to have a Hungarian Jew for a president, is not?

User talk:Malik Shabazz Add topic