Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:53, 8 May 2008

Archives

January – April 2007 May – June 2007 July – September 2007 October – November 2007 December 2007 – January 2008 February – March 2008 April 2008

reverts

I would like to add that I am not starting a revert war. 1) I put up material. 2) You reverted. 3) I added source. 4) You reverted saying it was not in source. 5) I reverted and demonstrated where source was. 6) You reverted once again without reading the source.

I'm wondering if you will be civil about this, block yourself, or contribute in a constructive manner? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.110.172.111 (talk) 23:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

2 different excuses to delete the same thing. Congrats, I now know you're editing based on POV rather than facts. I don't think we'll get anything positive accomplished now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.110.172.111 (talk) 23:44, April 25, 2008 (UTC)

This is nothing new, Malik Shabazz has a history of excessive reverts and he often ignores sources while pushing his POV. He is also known for requesting account blockage if somebody brakes 3 reverts rule while braking the same rule himself. His behavior is being watched, documented and will be reported if necessary.--Cvc42 (talk) 17:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

John S. Curtiss

Hello Malik, how have you been? This is a notable Columbia University historian who is also one of the scholarly debunkers of the Protocols of Zion. Don't you think that your Speedy Deletion tag was put up rather hastily? Please reconsider. Thanks. Ludvikus (talk) 16:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Malik, nice to learn that you are reasonable and flexible. I'll get back to you soon, after more development, with a request for removal on the notability Tag. Have a nice day. Ludvikus (talk) 17:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Sinchronized changes

Hi Malik, Thanks for your input and tidying up by sinchronizing the related templates. Keep up the good work. Sincerely, Rusty Dr. B. R. Lang (talk) 21:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Hi, Malik. Re: Sara Roy My point was "was" at AfD in that sentence. Looking at the article, there clearly was an intent to do a hatchet job on her, and highlight controversies and errors to put her in a bad light. So I added a bit and neutralized some. But I think AfDing should be the last step, especially if a tendentious editor is no longer there to cause trouble and revert BLP content deletions.. As I said she is the world's leading expert on her subject (Norman Finkelstein calls her the world's leading authority on the Gaza Strip, period.) and so is clearly notable and prominent. I don't know about the sockpuppeteer who wrote the article, but not all contributions of even serious rule breakers are all negative. Cheers,John Z (talk) 02:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I can see better now why the article needed / needs drastic changes. Particularly silly to emphasize politics / Hamas insinuating she's some kind of Hamas auxiliary when her expertise is in economics, and the part about the position she hasn't taken is a good laugh. Glad we're close to agreement. John Z (talk) 04:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

POVdue to overstatement of pro-Nadia case and puffery such as "delightful mind" -- not at all suitable or neutral

May 2008

Please stop. If you continue to violate Misplaced Pages's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to Nadia Abu El Haj, you will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 16:32, May 2, 2008 (talk) 68.197.233.75 (UTC)

Palestinian territories‎

Greetings, Malik. A clash has developed at the cited page that I believe could benefit from your experienced help. Could you have a look at the recent history? Perhaps you will know a better way to handle this situation and break the present deadlock. Thanks in advance, and very best wishes, Hertz1888 (talk) 21:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Obama Image on African American page

forestgomp (talk) 01:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

re: my removal of image of Barack Obama from African American page (history: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=African_American&action=history)

It DOES make sense to discuss Obama on the page as a trailblazing African American in the context of the election. But the image by itself lacks relevance. I suggest it either be removed per my edit or augmented with appropriate text to provide context.

"On The Jewish Question"

Greetings, Malik shabazz, hope you are well. But with these quotes? Are you responsinle for that? I have no idea what that means? To me it's just sloppy. Otherwise, Cheers. --Ludvikus (talk) 01:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• Check the cite: --Ludvikus (talk) 01:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• Maybe you misunderstood me. I'm asking about what you've been doing here:  : --Ludvikus (talk) 03:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • As you can see it's the Disambiguation page. I'm trying to figure what who wants what there. That's where these quotes come in. And I thought you would check the articles being disabiguated. So please let me know what your view is so I don't end up spinning my wheels endlessly. Cheers. --Ludvikus (talk) 03:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Shabazz! I do not understnd what you are say here:

(cur) (last) 03:25, 3 May 2008 Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) m (801 bytes)

(Reverted good faith edits by Ludvikus;

(a) references to "The Jewish Question" precede all others,

(b) the description of the Final Solution comes from that article. (TW)) (undo)

• • Explain what your concern is, please. --Ludvikus (talk) 03:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Szmul Zygielbojm.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Szmul Zygielbojm.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Revisionism

Let's Discuss it. I will abide by the consesus. And look at my reference. --Ludvikus (talk) 16:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• I've answered you on this on my page. --Ludvikus (talk) 16:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Cemetery

Many thanks for filling up the Waldheim Cemetery ... I'm more used to people wishing to cfd them. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 19:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Marx/Engels Collected Works

I don't think we need the LOC entry at all, and the contents should probably be summarized in some fashion rather than listed in full; but I think there are in principle interesting things we could say about the books - for instance, if, as I believe, they contained the first and/or only translations of certain works by Marx and Engels, that would be worth mentioning. Also, a discussion of their reception in the academic world would be helpful - the Marx Internet Archive link in the article says that MECW contains the most authoritative translations of Marx; this is probably something that has been debated by Marx scholars. The publishing history seems potentially interesting, too, as the collection appears to have been a collaboration between the (Stalinist) Progress Publishers and the (Trotskyist) International Publishers. Perhaps, in the end, there isn't enough to say about this work to justify an article, but I don't think it's something that's deserving of immediate deletion. VoluntarySlave (talk) 21:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Iraq War activist criteria

"Not everyone who is against the Iraq War is a pacifist, an advocate of nonviolence, a conscientious objector, or against warfare in all circumstances: i.e. a anti-war activist."

--Thoughtman (talk) 05:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

What is the problem?

Instead of generalizing, can you be specific about you concerns, please. There is no way to resolve an issue by the use of generalities as you do. According, from my standpoint, if you wish something resolved, I advise you to be specific in the extreme. It appears to me that you visit all the cites I edit and seem to disagree with everything I write or edit. Is that not so? What do Wikipedians call that, can you tell me please? --Ludvikus (talk) 16:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

{{collapse top}}

The above tab is a great move on your part. But please leave my discussion with you since May 2008 open. --Ludvikus (talk) 17:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Please read this time

Please stop vandalizing article. --Thoughtman (talk) 18:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)