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 04:23, 6 May 2015 (Archiving 3 discussion(s) to User talk:Malik Shabazz/Archive 53) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 04:23, 6 May 2015 by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) (Archiving 3 discussion(s) to User talk:Malik Shabazz/Archive 53) (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.


Your revert (Gaza strip)

I wasn't talking about any consensus for Nishidani's "nonsense" (in your words). So I'd suggest you to read a Talk:Gaza Strip#Seib topic before your so fast revert. --Igorp_lj (talk) 21:52, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Your classification of people into two camps—those who compare the Gaza Strip to a concentration camp and therefore must be pathological "critics of Israel and left-wing / pro-Palestinian activists" and those who reject the comparison and can be left undescribed—violates both WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. I did read that section of the Talk page and, as I wrote, there was no consensus for your nonsense. — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 02:28, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Are you meaning that Lauren Booth, Giorgio Agamben aren't "critics of Israel and left-wing / pro-Palestinian activists"? IMHO, if someone may find an information about activism of "those who reject the comparison" it may be added as well.
Any way, there is no consensus for your edition as well, it isn't attributed, their RS are grouped confusedly, etc. So I'd invited you to take a part at the Talk page to discuss the arguments against it. --Igorp_lj (talk) 07:13, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Burning Down the House

Hi Malik

The reason i changed Burning Down the House was because the song made notable use of synthesizers (most notably the song's bass line) thus making the song a synthpop song. Now i also did provide sources for this reasoning (in fact that single's parent album Speaking in Tongues also states the word synthpop in its genre section). Granted, this genre is not representative of Talking Heads normal style, (i.e New Wave) but i felt this worth mentioning, and again i did cite references and sources but this seems to go unnoticed. One of those sources are:

http://www.discogs.com/Talking-Heads-Burning-Down-The-House/release/330165 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leahmurry (talk • contribs) 01:00, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Leahmurry. To describe a song as synthpop on Misplaced Pages, it takes more than a synthesizer; it takes a reliable source. You never provided one. In the one instance when you did provide a source, that source didn't describe "Burning Down the House" as synthpop.
This is the first time—in four attempts—that you have provided a source that describes the song as synthpop. Unfortunately, that source is Discogs, and Discogs is not considered a reliable source on Misplaced Pages because its content is user-generated. See WP:WikiProject Albums/Sources#Sources to avoid. I recommend that you read WP:Identifying reliable sources and continue to search for a reliable source that describes "Burning Down the House" as synthpop. — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 05:49, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Broken refs on Judaism

There are lots of broken refs on the article Judaism, some of which I may have added accidentally. It's been bothering me but I'm not sure how to fix it. --Monochrome_Monitor 02:16, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

It looks like you copied some content from Christianity and antisemitism but didn't copy the sources properly. I've taken care of it. — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 03:33, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! --Monochrome_Monitor 10:57, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Troll account

Troll account: , if you care to block. Softlavender (talk) 13:09, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Never mind, done. Softlavender (talk) 13:35, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

You've moved on, but ... Robeson.

Good morning,

I tapped several usernames found in the Robeson legacy talk miasma, to ask a question about insertion of Paul Robeson's name, hyperlinked to his page, in the Black Players section of the nascent NFL/wikiproject (http://en.wikipedia.org/Black_players_in_American_professional_football), and as the first I found still here, you're elected. If you lack time or prefer to skip it, I understand.

I won't repeat what you can see on my single-item Talk page, but why all the pearl-clutching over his "leanings," in 2015? This multicultural, multilingual man of astounding talent and intellect, described by other "commies" (Pete Seeger among them, o my!) as human grace personified, out-classed every individual who worked to take him down, or didn't have his back. Even mention of a USPS stamp in his honor draws quibble here.

Students, especially black students, aware of Robeson shouldn't be relatively limited to those attending a school named for him. All American public school students should be aware of his highlights, including his politics, as an activist and intellectual.

Great player or not, I had to hunt to find him in any football sections.

A simple question turned into a rant, sorry about that. Maybe I missed something, then I can just feel sheepish and go away.  :) Gwenelen (talk) 14:52, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Heather Hunter

Hi,

So what was the problem regarding the source I posted regarding Heather Hunter? The information comes from a printed, published source, hence it ought to be reliable (more so than if posted on some dubious internet site). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Holanthony (talk • contribs) 21:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Please read WP:Biographies of living persons and WP:Identifying reliable sources. High Society is a pornographic magazine with zero credibility for anything beside publishing photos of naked women. To pretend it is a reliable source because it comes off a printing press is absurd in the extreme.
If you continue to add poorly sourced material to biographies, especially biographies of living people, you will be blocked from editing. — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 02:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Small help on non-controversial speedy deletions

Hi, if you have time, could you delete all the 14 archive pages created by a new inexperienced user on Talk:Sweet Briar College? That way I don't have to tag them all for speedy (or figure out what tag to use). After they are deleted, I will set up a proper archive and archiving system, but I can't until that is done. I have alerted the user of my intentions on their Talk page. Thanks! Softlavender (talk) 06:03, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Addendum: I have now tagged them all for speedy deletion. If you or any admin watching this page could delete them, I can go about fixing the archiving on that talk page. For convenience, here are the links (feel free to remove when done):

Thanks, Softlavender (talk) 06:33, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

 Done by Anthony Bradbury. No further action necessary. Thanks all. Softlavender (talk) 00:13, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

User talk:Malik Shabazz Add topic