This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Simon Adler (talk | contribs) at 02:58, 12 July 2016 (→All-white jury: ce). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 02:58, 12 July 2016 by Simon Adler (talk | contribs) (→All-white jury: ce)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) |
|
| 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. |
I was looking at your recent edit at
Letters from Russian Prisons, noticing int he picture of the cover that th "F" in "from" is in capitols and then went looking at the history of the article and was sr=urprised to discover that I did not start the article, when I was pretty sure I did. Food for thought. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 06:21, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- Now when I look at it, I did start it. I am so confused. Carptrash (talk) 06:22, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Carptrash. Yesterday, an editor added a link to an online copy of the book, and I got a little carried away.
Regarding the capitalization of "from", MOS:CT says it shouldn't be capitalized unless it's the first or last word of the title. — MShabazz /Stalk 11:27, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- Oh I am very happy with your work there, including the title, it's just something odd happened when I looked at the history and I panicked. Somehow I was looking at the wrong article's history. The real history is interesting in that you arrived at the article the same day I published it, five years ago. Carptrash (talk) 16:09, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Carptrash. Yesterday, an editor added a link to an online copy of the book, and I got a little carried away.
Max Blumethal
I just posted the information that seems to make you biased and unqualified to make decisions about Max Blumenthal's page considering the fact that you are ideologically aligned with him and thus defend him
Please don't use Misplaced Pages as a propaganda platform or I will make sure that you are removed. Please respond to this point. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Relzap (talk • contribs) 15:45, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- Please familiarize yourself with the relevant policies and guidelines, especially WP:BLP and WP:NOR. Then, maybe, if you behave like a civil human being, we can discuss why your recent edits related to Blumenthal violate Misplaced Pages policy and resulted in the speedy deletion of your article. — MShabazz /Stalk 16:00, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Arbitration Committee motion regarding Malik Shabazz
In August 2015, the administrator privileges of Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) were revoked under the Level I desysop procedure, which is intended as a temporary measure. The Arbitration Committee has satisfied itself that the account was not compromised and that any ongoing disruption at the time has ceased. Accordingly, we affirm that Malik Shabazz may be resysopped at his request at any time.
- Support
- Callanecc, Casliber, Courcelles, DGG, Doug Weller, Drmies, GorillaWarfare, Kelapstick, Kirill Lokshin, Opabinia regalis
- Not voting
- DeltaQuad, Guerillero, Keilana, Salvio giuliano
For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:43, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
- Cross-posted for the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07 (T) 18:55, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
| 10 July |
|---|
Took only 300 years to restore a good name. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:12, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
All-white jury
You have expressed an interest in this article. Any comments you might care to offer, regarding my edit suggestions, would be welcome. Gulbenk (talk) 19:20, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for reminding me, Gulbenk. I had forgotten about it. — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 20:51, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Malik Shabazz to label my edit as vandalism is an irresponsible act on your part. I shall pursue that further in the appropriate forum. There was a lengthy discussion on this matter, where I presented of reasoned argument for the edit. Gulbenk (talk) 21:39, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- I'm sorry you feel that way, but blanking the entire section, sources and all, suggests you didn't bother to read any of them, or my argument on the talk page. See WP:Vandalism#Blanking, illegitimate. — MShabazz /Stalk 22:36, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- Malik, it's good to see you back, but I'm going to have to strongly disagree with you on this particular point. I think you were right in every other respect, mind you, but as I see it, Gulbenk at worst made a mistake. He was trying to make the article better, according to his own interpretation of 'better'; he was not replacing paragraphs with "LOL GAY" or such. To this end, I have revdel'd the edit summary. DS (talk) 00:06, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- You're right, DragonflySixtyseven, the edit certainly wasn't on that level. I apologize to you, Gulbenk. While we disagree fundamentally about how to improve it, I agree with DragonflySixtyseven that you're trying to make the article better, and I shouldn't have referred to your edit as vandalism. May I suggest that we ask for a third opinion or try some other means of getting input from other editors? — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 01:53, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- I would be happy to assist in any small way. Gulbenk what are your major issues with the article at this stage, having read the latest comments on the article T/P, which seem to indicate that the article is balanced by the prominent passage However, the phrases "all-white jury" and "all-black jury" may raise the expectation that deliberations may be less than fair and in a strongly balanced citation and detailed note gives the example of the O.J Simpson aquittal. To my uninvolved eye this is a powerful statement as to the NPOV character of the article. Regards Irondome (talk) 02:19, 12 July 2016 (UTC)