Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Malik Shabazz (talk | contribs) at 00:02, 10 March 2007 (→[]: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Velvet Underground timeline

Hello Malik Shabazz, I just saw your argument to delete the Velvet Underground timeline. I have different views, and I would like to invite you to react on them. Thanks, Curt Woyte 09:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

curious

would I know you from no-more-songs? Tvoz | talk 00:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Almost certainly. I'm a member of n-m-s. Malik Shabazz 01:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Figured as much. I haven't been reading it regularly of late - sometimes the discussions get so tedious that I can't take it. The best for me are the sightings usually. But I still get it, and sometimes do a marathon read - you may have seen me post there from time to time. I put a fair amount of work into the Ochs wiki page a few months ago and since then have been mostly watching for vandals there while getting beat up (but still standing) on some other pages (see Talk: Kent State shootings for example, if you're interested and feel free to jump in...) and working on a bunch of other stuff like Obama, and a variety of Beatles pages with the most enjoyable group of editors I've encountered on Misplaced Pages, and lots of other stuff. Anyway, Ochs is much more comprehensive now than it was, and I'm pretty pleased with it - but it can always use more. Add to it! 06:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, just realized who you are. Yup, I certainly have seen you on n-m-s, a lot. Cheers. 06:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Actuary

Hello, Malik! -- Avi 01:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I am glad you don't think actuarial science and political science are not sciences. How do I remove those science lables or does the word science appended at the end of a term like creation science mean that it is not science becaue a real scuinec does not need to announce it self to the world as science? like mr Avi who keeps trying to say that removal of the science from actiuarial science is noit right? Who is right? What counts? Is it the correct policy to either point out or not point out that say creation science is not science? Chivista 20:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Noah Fleiss

I know it'll be difficult, but we still need a source. Maybe eventually he'll do an interview? Maybe there is something out there. I do understand it will be hard to find. -FateSmiled&DestinyLaughed 22:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Szmul Zygielbojm.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Szmul Zygielbojm.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Misplaced Pages articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. 23:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Your edit to Malcolm X

Quote: Hi. I noticed that you added the following sentence to the article about Malcolm X:

The surname of 'Little' was actually given to Earl by his slave masters while he was younger, therefore his true given surname is actually unknown.

I have two questions. First, had Earl Little been enslaved? (I don't think the Autobiography says so, but maybe some other source does.) If not, he inherited the name "Little" from an enslaved ancestor, and you might want to tighten up the sentence to say that. Second, I've done some editing of the slave name article, and I want to edit the Malcolm X article but I haven't had the time. If Earl Little wasn't enslaved himself, you might want to refer to "Little" as his (or Malcolm X's) "slave name" and link to that article.

Also, if you'd like to, please help improve the slave name article. Malik Shabazz 22:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC) Unquote.

Malik...duely noted. I am not entirely sure whether Earl himself was enslaved or his ancestors and unfortunately I cannot site where that information came from. I believe I heard it in a documentary clip with Malcolm himself, but cannot be certain. I will research and update accordingly upon my findings. Thank you for questioning. --Usually Right 20:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

CCA

There was an article that was deleted for lack of notability. By adding the 1100 figure, I hope that shows that the conference is not so unnotable. I would suggest you add some references as to the importance of the CCA, preferably from sources other than the CCA itself. -- Avi 15:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for alerting me to the actual content of that message re Malcolm X. The heading for the template I used used to be accurate, I hope (otherwise I messed up before). It says "may be considered vandalism" but the actual message says "is vandalism." I did want the contributor to think about what effect filling in the blanks on what was pretty obviously an "official document" could do to the process of getting these articles evaluated. I assume that some kind of a task force is responsible for grading articles according to some predetermined standards. If they are looking around for articles to evaluate and the evaluation is already filled in they may fail to realize that it is not work that was done by somebody entitled to do that task. One article wouldn't make much difference in the long run, but what if the user makes a practice of grading ungraded articles? I fixed the contributor's talk page. P0M 07:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I just noticed the discussion about Malcolm X's father. I never read anything that said that his father was a grandfatherly 60+ years old or so when he was conceived. (1925-1865=60) So it's questionable that his father could have been born a slave. P0M 07:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding edits made to Gary Coleman

Thank you for contributing to Misplaced Pages, Malik Shabazz! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Misplaced Pages. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule \bmembers\.tripod\.com\/.+, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Misplaced Pages. Please read Misplaced Pages's external links policy for more information. If the link was to an image, please read Misplaced Pages's image tutorial on how to use a more appropriate method to insert the image into an article. If your link was intended to promote a site you own, are affiliated with, or will make money from inclusion in Misplaced Pages, please note that inserting spam into Misplaced Pages is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 20:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Israeli Newspaper

Thank you for that helpful bit of information, Malik! Noogster 23:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

USN&WR

Nice find, Malik! -- Avi 01:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Editing John Amaechi

You contacted me about my posts and edits. Thank you. My source was John Amaechi's interview on WNYC here in New York; I added that at the bottom of the article. I'm not yet facile with Misplaced Pages's capacities, so I'm usually doing the minimum of typing words, without using everything to note, reference, highlight, and so on.

Reading your user page, we have many of the same interests and I would appreciate corresponding with you.

Thank you again, BigGuy

Re: Hidden in Plain View

If there is an article about the actual book titled Hidden in Plain View, then it should be created at Hidden in Plain View (book), or better Hidden in Plain View: A Secret Story of Quilts and the Underground Railroad, and then an "otheruses" line within Hidden in Plain View would be more than appropriate, as well as possibly creating Hidden in Plain View (disambiguation). However, as long as there is no article about the book itself (and if there is no intention of creating one), there are different options: The best would be a disambiguation page mentioning the book, with a link to it atop the Hidden in Plain View article. Another option would be a whole section specifically about the book within the Quilts of the Underground Railroad, preferrably titled "Hidden in Plain View: A Secret Story of Quilts and the Underground Railroad" with the "otheruses" tag I reverted linking to this section. Hope this helps. --HarryCane 18:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Forgotten Hebrew

I hope you don't mind that I borrowed your "forgotten Hebrew" userbox; I was looking for something exactly like it. Would you consider linking to it somewhere more prominent? Kevinsam 07:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of unattributed information

Hi Malik. If I deleted all the unattributed or poorly attributed information on Misplaced Pages, there'd only be 10% left. It's better to have something unsourced than improperly sourced; once you stick an improper source on something, it gives it a false semblance of legitimacy. Also, standards used to be different on Misplaced Pages, and for the first couple of years almost nothing was attributed; rather than fixing all the errors of the past, I generally try to make sure new dubious material doesn't get in, so at least the problem doesn't get any worse. Jayjg 19:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, as I said before, it's the improperly attributed information that is the most dangerous, because it gives the semblance of being true. Also, I don't necessarily read through the whole article each time, but my attention does get focussed on the area that was brought to attention via the improper attribution. And, frankly, some stuff in an article I find to be plausible, even if unsourced, while other stuff I find to be implausible, and I would be likely to delete the latter. I sometimes do delete old stuff from articles that looks implausible as well, even if it is not tagged; I've gotten some mighty objections to that as well, including in the last couple of days. Jayjg 20:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

You're probably right

But it's always worth a shot anyway. Tiamut 20:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

self-hatred

Hi,

I would be grateful if you would take a look at the conflict at self-hatred. I see that you have been updating and sourcing the information about the controversial uses of the term self-hating Jew. I tried to include a one-sentence summary of that info in the "controversial uses" section of the article on self-hatred, because I think such a summary belongs there. Maybe I somehow got it wrong (I would appreciate your opinion about that), but it all ended up in an edit war with User:Jayjg and User:Slim Virgin, who apparently feel there is no controversy at all, and see no controversy reported in the article self-hating Jew. They also consider my attempt at summarizing to be original research. If you agree with them that my summary is incorrect, perhaps you would like to include your own? Regards, --91.148.159.4 00:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it and try to help if I can. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 00:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)