Talk:Earnest James Ujaama

message: Please do not add or delete or make edits at the same time that I am working on the page. There is a lot of information to add and I need time, at least until the end of December or mid January 2017. thank you. --Semaj247 (talk) 06:07, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing conflicts 

message: It seems there has been much interference and harassment by those who obviously don't care about the integrity and accuracy of this subject. There have been unnecessary removals and destruction of photos and important content to show who the subject is today, and was in the past. These photos are part of the biography; pictures tell a thousand more words. They help to imagine the person as who they are along with the choice in use of facts. This author believes in the credibility and integrity of reporting. According to the rules of Wikipedia, there are only five in a nutshell. Among the ones I find as most important are neutrality and communication. Anyone is free to improve an article or page, but to destroy or render the content as incomplete or harmful to the subject is simply: plain evil. It is what haters do-- they destroy good things. To advise and offer assistance is the hallmark of a true community; it is what do-gooders do. Of course, there will always be disagreements. Those disagreements should not destroy the integrity of the subject reported on, no matter who is doing the reporting. There is no one who is more familiar than I on this subject, and a few others that I hope to have an opportunity to improve for better research. I can say this because I know what information is accessible and what is not, and what I have from both public and private sources. I also have the authorization to use it. I am not being paid by anyone to do this work. And I am not a programmer, so I feel bullied by those who obviously want to render this page incomplete and destroy the integrity or neutrality of it, but have more access and programming skills. However, I will not go away so easily, or be bullied by haters. Wikipedia has a bad reputation and can be improved. I will not go away so easily, because Wikipedia is for everyone and is used by many. However, it must be improved by do-gooders, and that is my mission to do so on the subjects or persons which I am most familiar. In the future, for those who don't like my edits, or have issues -- all you haters -- please leave your comments here and I will be happy to respond. But note this -- I will not discuss "me", personally, because there is no need to do so. I will only discuss this page and its' content, as well as the other pages that I intend to improve for the good of the entire world community. Thank you. Semaj247 (talk) 19:36, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  There are haters and there are do-gooders, which one are you? 

message: I plan to return tonight to finish up the citation edits on this page, add more content and sources of references. I am also working on permission proofs for all photos that were deliberately removed to trash this page. Semaj247 (talk) 19:40, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Will return to complete citations.

message: I have more citations to add. Still working on it and will resume off and on throughout the week. Semaj247 (talk) 05:06, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Still more to add

message: Today, I returned to add more contextual content. There is a large body of information. I am praying that the work which has been added isn't sabotaged as has been the case since I began this work. It is a complex and fascinating story. There is so much more to add, such as background on the subject. His early life, past work that earned him high praise, and troubled years. It will be fun to continue tomorrow.Semaj247 (talk) 04:53, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Still working on it... 

message: Hi everyone, this author has plans to work to improve the Terrorism page soon after this project is completed. There are also plans to work on a few other incomplete pages for which I have much research. I look forward to helping to improve Wikipedia as a reputable encyclopedic resource tool. Although, it would be impossible to work on every subject, I have a few in mind such as 2339A and 2339B Providing Material Support and Resources to Terrorists and Providing Material Support and Resources to Foreign Terrorist Organizations. These are very similar, but very distinct, laws. In order to understand these laws, one must understand the legal definition of terrorism and how it is used to determine guilt. Also, to understand Terrorism in general, one must understand the history and evolution of the word. Terrorism no longer has the meaning it once did say back in the early 18th century at the time of the French Revolution when the word was first coined.Semaj247 (talk) 05:03, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plans to work on the Terrorism page after 

message: JJMC89 continues to make deliberate changes to disparage the subject. JJMC89 removes important contextual and biographical content. JJMC89 has taken photos that are important in telling a complete story of the individual and provide further substance to the story. People who research the subject will have a complete story, but JJMC89 is deliberately attempting to sabotage this page. However, I will not let that happen because it is a disservice to the Wikipedia community and those who google Wikipedia for academic research. Semaj247 (talk) 20:42, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changing the stylistic changes made by JJMC89  

message: This is by far the worst article I've ever encountered in 14 years of editing Wikipedia. It is entirely partisan. It leaves out nearly every detail of the subject's existence that ought to appear in an encyclopedia article. It stretches to support a positive view of its subject. This article needs some tough love, and the sooner the better. The section entitled "Trial exchange" will be the first to go.--Quisqualis (talk) 03:49, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ujaama Apologia 

message: My initial reactions upon reading this article is So What! and then wonder why an editor ever thought the subject of this article was worth writing about in the first place. Determining this is more painful than pulling teeth. The lead sentence says the subject of this article "... is an African American Muslim." Why is that claim notable and how does it distinguish the subject of this article from any other American? The next word in this sentence should be "who" and be followed by a good reason why this person is notable. In this case it appears the subject is a prominent community activist who has been accused of running a "terrorist" training camp in Bly, but I had to trawl through the whole article to determine that, and even then I am not certain. Readers should not have to work so hard, as many will give up after the first sentence. The opening paragraph, and especially the first sentence of a good lead section, should answer enough of the readers "who, what, when, where and why" questions succinctly to allow them to decide whether to read on or not. An article's LEAD section should provide an accessible overview to the subject, not tease the reader with a single factoid. Also, Wikipedia is not a newspaper so articles should not be quoting news reports to tell the story nor name-dropping these publications into articles. Attributing a claim to a person is fine, but editors should summarize news reports in their own words and include inline citations for the statements made. I know a specific news service reported it if editors use an inline citation to cite the news service report well; there is no need to state the obvious in the article. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 01:44, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claim to notability 

message: Should the lead sentence of the article refer to Earnest James Ujaama as  or ? ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 22:39, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead sentence