User talk:Fusion2186

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Fusion2186, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Darkness Shines (talk) 19:11, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did I get it wrong?Fusion2186 (talk) 20:49, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

October 2017[edit]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Assata's Daughters. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:03, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If there was an issue with my edits feel free to list responses to them. Don't forget to assume good faith. There is no part of the editing that I did not explain in the talk page and reference relevant policies. You simply disagreeing with them does not constitute grounds for a revert. There is no experimentation involved. All information used was cited using the sources listed.Please refer back to the talk page for this article for further discussion.Fusion2186 (talk) 05:06, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Assata's Daughters[edit]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

— Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:59, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Im confused here. Are you discouraging me from checking the verifiability of the sources in the article simply because you dont agree with me? Am I not supposed to subject this article to the same scrutiny I would give any other? I've repeatedly posted to the talk page on the article explaining my edits and the reasoning behind them and have gotten absolutely nothing back from you as far as why you disagree with me or why my edits have been reverted. You simply revert them with no explanation or logic given to define the action, and then post things about discretionary sanctions on my talk page. I posted on the talk page over a week ago looking for feedback from you with no response. You're avoiding discussion entirely and acting like you own the article. So by all means, please offer more than a copy/paste of the sanctions advisory.Fusion2186 (talk) 23:46, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop misrepresenting what the sources say. You claim they don't support the material they are being used to support when they do. I can't discuss something with an editor who lives in an alternate reality with his own "alternative facts". — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:08, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No im not misrepresenting anything, i'm pointing out a misrepresentation. What im "claiming" is that the quote being used in the WP article is out of context. Whether they do or do not support something is not for us to decide. I'm not sure what you are referring to when you say "alternative facts". Read the article that's cited. There are several people being interviewed and the quote in question about Dr. King and Malik Shabazz, is from a representative of another group responding to a question. How do we attribute that to be specifically about Assata's Daughters when he is not a member or representative of the group and is not speaking in that capacity? Its not verifiable.

As far as the community programs, its sourced directly from the organizations website. No secondary sources at all. Citation #12 takes you directly to the "interested in joining"/"how to apply" page of the organization. It looks and reads like an advertisement. You were the one who put up the verification banner, ive spent the better part of a week trying to find the information in another source with no luck. So i deleted it. If you have another source thats verifiable, lets add that in there. Fusion2186 (talk) 00:32, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"What does stopping traffic, blocking store doors and going to brunch spots do for the cause? May: It disrupts business as usual, helping to raise consciousness and putting pressure on our target decision makers." (emphasis added) According to you, the statement in the Wikipedia article that Assata's Daughters "combines King's peaceful protesting and Malcolm X's 'by any means necessary' philosophy to change how protesting occurs and to disrupt 'business as usual'" "is not verifiable". Are you sure you still want to argue that you're not misrepresenting what the sources say? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:48, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. There is no comparison anywhere in the article between the protest tactics, ideals or philosophy of A.D and Dr. King or Malik Shabazz. If it doesnt violate WP:V then it violates WP:SYN. Wikipedia's voice is making the comparison without anything in either source making the comparison. The WP article states:

"Assata's Daughters, along with many of the other newly founded black activist organizations in Chicago, is operating under the ideals of both Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X. The group combines King's peaceful protesting and Malcolm X's "by any means necessary" philosophy to change how protesting occurs and to disrupt "business as usual".

The first sentence states that they are "operating under the ideals of both Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X." and cites this[1] article , Dr. King and Malik Shabazz are both mentioned in the article, but by another activist: "Not everything we do is exactly new, but we're bringing a fresh look to protesting," said Ja'Mal Green, 20, of Gresham. "We look at Martin Luther King's way of peaceful protesting, which is pretty much taken for granted, and Malcolm X's saying, 'By any means necessary,' and put those two together."

He isnt referred to as a member of A.D, he doesnt mention A.D, he doesnt make a direct comparison, he isnt listed as an associate of A.D. Assata's Daughters isnt mentioned until 7 paragraphs later: "Plenty of other groups have emerged, including We Charge Genocide, Assata's Daughters, Project NIA, Lifted Voices, Chicago Alliance Against Racist and Political Oppression and the Chicago Light Brigade."

The second sentence states that "The group combines King's peaceful protesting and Malcolm X's "by any means necessary" philosophy to change how protesting occurs and to disrupt "business as usual" and cites this [2] source. There is no mention of Dr. King or Malik Shabazz and no comparison between them and the group in the article. Page May is quoted as saying "It disrupts business as usual, helping to raise consciousness and putting pressure on our target decision makers." Even in context I think its a stretch to say that the words "disrupts business as usual" creates much more of a parallel between A.D and Dr. King than to say that the objective of the protests is to be disruptive. All kinds of protests disrupt business as usual, thats the point. That holds true whether protesting police brutality or tax law. There is no mention of protest tactics, philosophy or ideals or even "Malcolm X" Also, Ja'Mal Green IS mentioned in this article as well as the first one. Not as a representative, member or organizer for A.D but listed specifically as a Co-founder for another group.

I would also like to bring up the community programs section. I addressed it on the talk page over a week ago but there were no replies, I'll state again that the entire section reads like a recruitment advertisement and violates WP:V. Its taken straight from the organizations webpage. The citation is even titled: "interested in joining?". I'm not disputing that they are or are not teaching those things, but a statement that a group is or is not teaching a specific cirriculum should be independently verified before we present it as fact. There is no secondary source that I could find and I spent a good portion of a week looking for one before I deleted the section.

You stated that I live in an "alternative universe" with "alternative facts" in what I perceive to be an attempt to imply I am biased or possibly racist. I vehemently repudiate both and would like to direct you back to WP:CIVIL. But as long as we are on the subject, I am curious about the neutrality on this subject of an editor who's screen name is Malik Shabazz and after a cursory glance at your user page is outspokenly involved in black activism. (Personal Note: I think your user page is awesome and I think your outspokenness is something to be very proud of and I applaud you for it Sir.)But how can you be objective when it would be in your interest to portray the group in the most positive light possible? I would even wonder if you would be able to contribute to the article without being it being a conflict of interest.WP:COI

Please see the talk page on the article. I have brought up several issues there about the article that I have tried to rectify, that you reverted while only citing policy but not actually giving and explanation as if you are the final authority of the article and are above reproach. Please see WP:OWN. I listed each point individually with the related policies as well as my reasoning behind them. If you would like to revert and edit or change something done to the article, you should address the issues on the talk page in order to come to a concensus. Not just arbitrarily revert them. Fusion2186 (talk) 18:02, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blah, blah, blah. "Please be civil but I won't be." "Follow the rules, but they don't apply to me." Go to hell. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:58, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Malik Shabazz, I'm sorry if I came off as rude or disrespectful, I didn't mean to. I hope you will accept my apologies if I did. I saw that you deleted my post on your talk page, but I would still really like your feedback on the Assata's Daughters article. I'm still very new to editing and I think that I could benefit tremendously from working with an experienced editor like yourself. If you're no longer interested, please let me know and I won't bother you again. Whatever your position is on the matter, I hope you will accept my apologies and I hope that we have a chance to collaborate again in the future.Fusion2186 (talk) 15:39, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User page warning[edit]

The content you left at the userpage of Dr.snailman should have been left at the user talk page rather than on their userpage, so I have blanked that page. Home Lander (talk) 15:24, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! Thats the first time ive ever had to do that. Thanks for fixing it.Fusion2186 (talk) 15:26, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure![edit]

Hi Fusion2186! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 15:48, Tuesday, November 7, 2017 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

Adoption Notice Expired[edit]

Hello, I'm Hundsrose. I wanted to let you know that I removed the "seeking adoption" userbox from your user page, because you haven't been active for at least a month. When you come back to Wikipedia, feel free to add the userbox back with the code {{Adopt me}}. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks!

Discretionary sanctions notification[edit]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in climate change. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Ian.thomson (talk) 22:46, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice[edit]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 10:42, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]