User:Malik Shabazz/Tabs

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, then place ((Talkback|your username)) on my talk. If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, then place ((Talkback|Malik Shabazz)) on your talk. Please click here to leave me a new message.

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 5 days

Hi Malik, I seem to be having an issue with another editor that continues to revert and delete sourced material in favor of his wording, here, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_George Lazyfoxx (talk) 15:05, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Malik, please read the full discussion between Lazyfoxx and myself here, here and here. If you could provide a third opinion here I would very much appreciate it. Cheers, —  Cliftonian (talk)  15:28, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lazyfoxx and Cliftonian. I'll review the background and get back to you over the next couple of days. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:33, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Malik. —  Cliftonian (talk)  02:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the deletion of a reliable source three times, here, here, and here., on an article that may be in the scope of the I/P area due to the content being discussed. Lazyfoxx (talk) 18:37, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did not delete reliable sources. On each occasion I replaced the two source footnotes Lazyfoxx added with a larger bundle of sources (with the ref name parameter "origins") including both of the sources he had added (Guiley and Maloney). No source information was actually removed on any of these occasions. —  Cliftonian (talk)  18:41, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification, but the issue remains of your constant reverting to the wording you see fit, when a reliable source clearly states it the way I had it. Lazyfoxx (talk) 19:59, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, I do not see what happened the same way. I will wait for outside views. Thank you for your patience Lazyfoxx. —  Cliftonian (talk)  20:34, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sorry for bothering you again with the same thing, but we just got another account just created to vandalize Popular Republican Union (2007) page. See here Special:Contributions/Francis Le français D0kkaebi (talk) 22:55, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not vandalize, it's a shame D0kkaebi trying to manipulate and controle alone this article by this method !--Francis Le français (talk) 00:05, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a result of recent edit-warring, I've protected the article for four days. I encourage both of you to continue discussing your proposed changes to the article at Talk:Popular Republican Union (2007) and, if necessary, to pursue WP:Dispute resolution. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:46, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you ! I have opened an IP investigation to know whether this new user dedicated to UPR / Asselineau is the same as the other IPs also dedicated to UPR/Asselineau here. He is now claiming that all those IPs have a consensus. D0kkaebi (talk) 02:49, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I make a list (talk page) and your opinion is welcome.--Francis Le français (talk) 14:17, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I took time to answer to all your comments. As you can see, changing the article based on your lack of review or knowledge was not justified. That's why I recommend you to discuss your change before proceeding as those make us loose time. D0kkaebi (talk) 00:18, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the article based on wikipedia's rules was justified (correct invalid sources, lies or errors). --Francis Le français (talk) 09:26, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk, just to inform you, you (and me) are being accused by --Francis Le français (talk) to "Lie" as said the title of the part and making "changes without obtaining consensus" from him, see here. Any opinion? D0kkaebi (talk) 01:34, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

False and ridiculous charge. I recalled that Malik have advised us (to us both - Both of us - you and me - francis the frenchy and D0kkaebi) to find consensus in discussion page--Francis Le français (talk) 02:14, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not false and ridiculous, we just don't understand your writings. Quoting your sentence below a comment from Malik "You doesn't understand that you are concerned ( both of you ) and yet you have made changes without obtaining consensus with me ( both of you) in the talk page ?" D0kkaebi (talk) 05:00, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear compatriot, you can ask me any details in our mother tongue (french ) + ( suppose my good faith WP:AGF ).have you understood that you were one of the people designated as malik Shabaz (both of you) ? and you need to find consensus on the points I have listed, for example ?--Francis Le français (talk) 04:35, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Malik

I found your sarcastic response inappropriate. I have already explained that I am a newcomer to Wikipedia and I am still learning the ropes. To state that "I guess reading isn't your strong suit" is no way to respond to a new member who is genuinely trying to contribute to an article. The reason I thought you may have blocked my account was because you were the one who kept reverting my edits. Either way, you could have explained in a way more befitting for an administrator.

I still do not understand why you will not respond to my questions on your talk page. You mentioned that I should take my concerns to other places. However, its was yourself who continually reverted my edits. You cannot revert someone's edits and then when they request a response from you, direct them somewhere else. It was you, personally, who had concerns with my edits, so I think it is fair for me to request your personal response.

Your interactions with me are seriously discouraging me from continuing. Please could you improve your interaction with newcomers and not discourage them.

Gazmie (talk) 10:08, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Malik, me again. I'm sorry to bother you, but I just noticed פורום קהלת (talk · contribs)—"Forum Kohelet"—which seems to be a WP:ROLE account representing the Kohelet Policy Forum. All the user's contributions seem to be related. I suspect the account has remained under the radar so far in part because the username is written in Hebrew and thus ineligible to most people. I'm unsure how to proceed with this so I thought I would pass it on to you as an administrator at least vaguely familiar with Hebrew. Cheers, —  Cliftonian (talk)  13:03, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cliftonian. Thank you for bringing this account to my attention. I agree that it's almost certainly a role account, and looking at the editor's global contributions makes me that much more certain. In accordance with policy, I've blocked the editor and invited them to select a new username that complies with policy.

I'll start reviewing the editor's contributions closely and considering whether they can be saved or should be reverted. (Interestingly, the editor's contributions to he.wiki have all been reverted.)

Thanks again. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:19, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Malik. —  Cliftonian (talk)  04:53, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

• Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
• Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
• Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
• Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
• Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
• Research coordinators: run reference services

Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How are you both Ashnenazi and African American? Per your user boxes. deisenbe (talk) 09:34, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi deisenbe. My father is Ashkenazi and my mother is African American (and Jewish). — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:16, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In what way is IMDb not a reliable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buffalo mozzarella (talk • contribs) 17:42, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with IMDb is that the content is user-generated. Wikipedia's reliable sources guideline specifically addresses the reliability of IMDb in the section at WP:USERGENERATED. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:29, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Buffalo mozzarella. Barek is right. As I wrote on your Talk page, I replied to your message at Talk:Miles Davis#Personal life. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:29, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you reverted many pages and signed it with: "removing non-free logo with no fair-use rationale" But after checking those articles, it seems they used the exact same logo that came from the logo objects parent article. Are you using a bot to do so, just click happy? And example is: The infobox of Iran–Iraq War in which the People's Mujahedin of Iran had an icon next to it but you removed it. I looked at a previous version of it and then read the parent article of People's Mujahedin of Iran where the same logo was present. The logo itself appears to have been created by MrPenguin20 which would make it eligible for fair use. ThurstonHowell3rd (talk) 06:16, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ThurstonHowell3rd. See WP:NFCC, which requires a fair-use rationale for each use of a non-free image (Item 10c). A non-free logo can be used in the main article about an organization, but that doesn't mean editors can use the logo in infoboxes in other articles that mention the group.

With respect to File:Flag of the People's Mujahedin of Iran - from Commons.svg, maybe I'm missing your point, but I don't think anything can make a non-free image eligible for fair use without a fair-use rationale. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 07:08, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just seemed odd that instead of creating the fair-use rationale to correspond with the using of the logos on the other pages, you just clicked through with a removal. True, it would be faster to click delete than to try to expand the content, but come on now. ThurstonHowell3rd (talk) 14:35, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) Adding a nfur seems like a quick and easy fix perhaps, but the use of a non-free image needs to comply with all WP:NFCCP and not be one of the unaccepatable uses found at WP:NFC#Unacceptable use. Non-free logos are not allowed to be used for purely "decorative" purposes in list article or tables/galleries per WP:NFLISTS and WP:NFG. Using the logo as the primary means of identification of the group in People's Mujahedin of Iran is considered acceptable per WP:NFCC#8. Other uses of the logo are generally not considered OK, however, unless the logo itself is the subject of sourced critical commentary within the article and thus it's removal will be detrimental to the reader's understanding along the lines WP:NFC#Meeting the contextual significance criterion. If you feel a valid non-free use rationale can be created for the article you wish to use the image, then create the rationale and add the image. However, I think MShabazz is right and the image should not be used in such ways and a valid nfur cannot be written for such usage. If, by chance, you feel that the image should instead be licensed as "free", then feel free to add the relevant licensing yourself. - Marchjuly (talk) 23:29, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ThurstonHowell3rd. I can only echo what Marchjuly wrote. WP:NFCC#8, with its requirement that the presence of a non-free image "would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding", is a pretty high bar for a tiny logo in an infobox. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:35, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I didn't scroll down far enough to see that the image had been moved from Commons as "non-free" and not to Commons as "free". It might be a good idea to ask an admin or a file mover to WP:MOF the file unless there is a particular reason it cannot be renamed to avoid a future confusion. - Marchjuly (talk) 06:46, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:30, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for doing that Malik Shabaazz. I didn't realize you were an admin when I posted above. Since the image is licensed as non-free, the nfur being used seems insufficient. Perhaps ((non-free use rationale logo)) should be used instead? Moreover, maybe this from the of the group's official Twitter account would be acceptable at the source of the image. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:54, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr Malik Shabazz, You recently deleted my post because I entered my name in the cast of Superfly the movie. I posted Fred Rolaf AKA Fred Ottaviano. As an actor who played a detective in this movie I went under the name of Fred Rolaf ( check with I M D B.com ) later in my career i went back to using my real birth name Ottaviano. I don't know why my name did not appear in the cast line up of Superfly so I innocently made that correction. Sorry for any inconvenience I may have caused. Thank you, Fred Ottaviano 72.188.171.24 (talk) 18:35, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:RS/IMDB that site cannot be used as a reference for Wikipedia articles. Along with that credits in WikiP film articles are as seen onscreen. MarnetteD|Talk 18:56, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I disagree that both sources I gave regarding the BitTorrent client are unreliable. The last source is from the developer's website where an administrator admits that BitTorrent installs adware. I think that this fact does need to be mentioned in the article, in order to give a fair and balanced article about this BitTorrent client. I think your revert should be undone, or there needs to be another constructive way to add this fact. 84.105.191.67 (talk) 21:27, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your message.

First, I don't see any such "admission". What I see is an acknowledgement that their program will install other software provided "[t]he user must accept the offer". In other words, if the user unchecks the box, it doesn't install adware.

The Comparison of BitTorrent clients describes BitTorrent as adware. I'm surprised that BitTorrent (software), the article about the software, doesn't use the word. It should.

With respect to sources, you're probably right. I was probably too hasty in rejecting the statement from BitTorrent Customer Support about the presence of adware. But a mention of the adware doesn't belong in the section about the Mac version of the software (where you put it). It probably belongs in the lead, the opening section.

Thank you again. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:46, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Israel has removed the gag order on the case of Avera Mengistu and conceded he is imprisoned in Gaza, kigelim, who got Radioman's original article deleted, has now published his own version of the story. Though he uses some sources, he gets the story woefully wrong. He also completely distorts my role in reporting the story. Given his role in leading the campaign to delete the original article, for him to write the new article seems perverse, at best.

Is there a way to revert to the original deleted article & update it with some of the information he's added since the gag was lifted? Further, there is now a second prisoner confirmed in Gaza. This man's case is still under gag, though I've already reported his name in Mint Press News, where I reported the original Mengistu story. Haaretz has interviewed his family & confirmed his imprisonment, but can't report his name. This article needs to be expanded, but I don't want to get into an edit war with kigelim, which is likely. What do you suggest is the best way to proceed?

I cannot find any reply to my earlier e mail to you. So I don't know if you saw it or responded. Richard Silverstein (talk) 04:18, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Richard. I replied to your e-mail message today. Check your inbox; if you don't have my message, let me know and I'll resend it.

I, too, was surprised when Kigelim started a new article about Avera Mengistu. I haven't been following the Mengistu story closely, but it wouldn't surprise me to learn that Kigelim got parts of the story wrong. Please feel free to correct and expand the new article. Try to stick to reliable sources, a phrase that has a specific meaning on Wikipedia.

With respect to the second prisoner, Hashem al-Sayyed, I think you would have the same problems Radioman had last month writing about Avera Mengistu. At this point, al-Sayyed isn't considered notable enough for a Wikipedia biography, and he won't be until multiple sources publish his name.

Let me know if you have any other questions. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:07, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]