Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MarnetteD (talk | contribs) at 01:31, 28 July 2016 (edit summary removed). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

User:Malik Shabazz/Tabs

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it. If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist. Please click here to leave me a new message.

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.

The Signpost: 21 July 2016

• News and notes: Board faces diversity and skill-base issues in new FDC appointments

• Discussion report: Busy month for discussions

• In the media: Women in science editathon gets national press; Misplaced Pages "shockingly biased"

• Featured content: A wide variety from the best

• Traffic report: Sports and esports

• Arbitration report: Script writers appointed for clerks

• Recent research: Using deep learning to predict article quality

POV accusations

Malik, how are you? Having heard a few lectures lately about Malcolm X, I had to think of you. :)

I saw you reverted this edit with the edit summary "Rv POV pushing". I really think you are being too harsh on him (her). First of all, because there really isn't much difference between "Israel built a wall" or "Israel unilaterally built a wall". Both say that Israel built a wall alone. If anything, the word "unilaterally" adds a stress that might be perceived as pushing some POV. The word is not taken from some source, in this specific sentence, so there really is no imperative that it stay. Secondly, because we really should assume good faith on Misplaced Pages. Especially from an editor who past the 500/30 editing restriction. I did notice that they edit much in the IP-conflict area, but not exclusively, so let's be nice to this guy, okay? Debresser (talk) 11:14, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Debresser. I started off assuming good faith about Kamel Tebaast, but when they announced their intention to push a POV in their first edit related to Israeli West Bank barrier, my assumption of good faith went out the window. — MShabazz /_Stalk 12:53, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

He stated a certain point of view, which is a legitimate and sourced point of view in this issue. The way I read his post, he didn't say he was going to make his agenda POV pushing. At most he said he will defend the legitimacy of his POV. Which is allowed. I think he still is entitled, as all editors, to a good faith assumption. Especially since I see he makes good edits, and engages in discussion.

Please also notice that several editors agree with his point of view at Talk:Israeli_West_Bank_barrier#Lede_edits. That shows that his is not some extreme POV he alone is pushing, rather it is a legitimate concern, shared by 4 editors already. Debresser (talk) 13:12, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm really not interested in debating, Debresser. My opinion is shaded by the fact that seconds after Kamel Tebaast posted their screed on the talk page, they started POV pushing, changing a link to an article into a link to a disambiguation page. I'm going to join the discussion at Talk:Israeli West Bank barrier. Sincere thanks for the reminder that I should try harder to assume good faith. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 17:59, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Sure. See you around. Debresser (talk) 18:21, 24 July 2016 (UTC)