User talk:Malik Shabazz

Are you here because I deleted your article? Please read this before you leave me a message.

Trolling

Don't critize me for defending Sole from your vieled attacks. I think you might benifit more from reading the links you provided and trying to appreciate the spirit in which they are written. With that said, I do recognize Sole was being a little loud with his critisms. I don't think it benifits you to try and be louder. Many thanks & all the best NickCT (talk) 21:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

For the record, as you've suggested your "veiled attack" was really just facetiousness, I apologize for any suggestion that you were acting in a manner similar to a troll. It was hastily said, and is hastily recanted. 23:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by NickCT (talk • contribs)

DYK for Camp Na'aleh

On February 23, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Camp Na'aleh, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Ucucha 18:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

HOT TATER

hi, i have no idea who you are but yes i read the page you wanted me to. I just want my article back to print up and maybe adit to wikipedias guidlines. i am new so if you could send it back that would be great. plus i spent a long time on it. it was titled "HOT TATER." Besant42 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Besant42 (talk • contribs) 00:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

hey this is besant 42 again. yeah i dont know if you have replied or not about hot tater article i wrote but if you could please atleast tell me yes or no. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Besant42 (talk • contribs) 00:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I replied on your Talk page. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

hey malik this is --Besant42 (talk) 00:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC). so my article HOT TATER is gone forever. like i cannot get it back. its gone? if so sorry and guess that sucks for me. peace.

Malik yes i would like it back and i will not repost it. i just want to print it. --Besant42 (talk) 00:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

LUUSAP

Not that I care so much, but I thought "right to vanish" pertained to users in "good standing". Sitting there indef'd hardly qualifies as "good standing". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

No harm. Thanks for fixing. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Why did you delete my article?

Oh, sorry, wrong heading. :) Looking at that Duke situation, the link that you first deleted and then added back seems to go just to the front page of the the Court TV page or whatever it is. I wonder if they have an archive to redirect that link to, or if it's simply gone? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

This is Jason Dodson himself.

Hi Malik,

Thank you for keeping the Jason Dodson article from being deleted. However, due to personal privacy reasons, I actually wish for the article about me to be deleted. I don't know how you can verify that this is really me, but if there is any way to do so, please let me know. This article was originally a good idea, and I believe some of my friends even contributed to the article over the years, but this now has WAY too much personal information that I don't want random people knowing about. I guess I brought that upon myself when I ran for political office.

Thanks for your help, Jason Dodson Marion, IL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.134.239.77 (talk) 09:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Per our Al-Durrah Conversation

This acceptable? NickCT (talk) 20:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Will do. NickCT (talk) 20:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Eminem is back

I disagree. So far, the consensus is clear: three !votes for a G4. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 00:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Cave conservancy

Hi,

You declined the speedy deletion for the redirect "Cave conservancy". The reason for the deletion request was placed on the redirects talk page, and is:

Per WP:SINGULAR, the article at Cave conservancies should be here. I've edited the article lede to be singular, and after the deletion, of this redirect, the article can be moved here.

Please reconsider. Thanks. -- Whpq (talk) 02:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for deleting and moving the artcile in! -- Whpq (talk) 02:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: McAlister's Deli

Hello Malik Shabazz. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of McAlister's Deli, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Mississippi Business Journal coverage looks like a clai of importance to me - try AfD if there are notability concerns. Thank you. Olaf Davis (talk) 12:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Rfc - Blood Libel / Israel's Brutality

You may be interested in commenting on this. NickCT (talk) 15:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Popcinfot

i do not understand why you delete popcinfot. i only here in this country few weeks. and you delete popcinfot. i believe everyone must have a chance at creating a wikipedia account with peace. i only meant it for the children. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Popkinfot (talk • contribs) 21:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

(i.e., popcinfot). hello. i think you are nonsence. i am only here for few weeks. i do not understand. i believe every person deserves a right to wikipedia. i am only thinking of the children. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Popkinfot (talk • contribs) 21:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

2 Headed Dog

Hello, I was wondering if I could start again with 2 Headed Dog. I'm new, and I just read through your page above, and I'm guessing you had doubts about 2HD's notability. The group consists of notable comics, and have been active in LA for the last 15 years, with press to back that up... I just hadn't got that far yet. Thank you. Somethingbode (talk) 00:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Tagging Al-Durrah

Malik, I noticed you protected Al-Durrah (probably a good idea), and I wanted to finish of a conversation we had had about tagging. I think my tagging is inline with WP:TAGGING. Specificly;

" Tags such as npov often merely indicate the existence of a dispute without taking a stand whether the article complies with Wikipedia policies. It is important to remember that the NPOV dispute tag does not mean that an article actually violates NPOV. It simply means that there is an ongoing dispute about whether the article complies with a neutral point of view or not. "

Other editors on Al-Durrah have argued that concensus has been reached. I think I've demonstrated through my Rfc that that is not the case. Can you I get you to weigh in on whether you think the tagging is appropriate or not? NickCT (talk) 18:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey Malik, I don't mean to press the point, but you expressed your opinion on putting a POV tag over the entire lede (which I mostly agreed with), but I don't recall you replying about how you felt re inline tags specificly. NickCT (talk) 18:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Malik Shabazz. Your name has been mentioned with regard to this issue which is being discussed at AE. I thought you might want to know, since the editor filing the report did not inform you. Tiamut^talk 19:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Tiamut^talk 19:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Malik - I'd appreciate it if you'd mention that I was consulting you apparently in good faith over the tagging issue - AE. I think I'd demonstrated that I was interested in your opinion on inline tagging. Will you say nothing for me? NickCT (talk) 19:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

al-Durrah

Malik, FYI, I've posted a request for ArbCom enforcement against NickCT and Soledad22 at Muhammad al-Durrah incident. See here. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 19:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

By the way, just to make clear, regarding the protection, I wish you hadn't done it, but I don't doubt your good faith. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs}

I don't know what the best thing to do now is. I think in your shoes I would unprotect and leave things for whichever admin responds to the AE request. A post to RfPP assumes that protection is the right thing: personally I think Nick and Soledad should be blocked, which is why I was writing something up for AN/I. But I'll leave it up to you. To be honest, I'm losing the will to live when it comes to that article. I put hundreds of hours into producing it, but I can't put hundreds more into maintaining it in the face of this kind of thing, so I'm thinking it's time to give up gracefully. :) SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 21:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Malik, I wish that you would have protected the article in its intact FA status - just before the see also addition was added, and without the continuing disruptions from Soledad and Nick, until whatever can be decided at ArbCom and the talk page. Thank you for stepping in, I wish it was before the article was defaced though. I think it might do well to unprotect it considering the vindictive tags that were added...Modernist (talk) 21:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words, Malik. They make all the difference. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 22:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

ELs

Hello... with regard to the EL discussion at the Israel page, I appreciate your input, but in this case it was (in my opinion) the wrong move to revert the links back in. Please keep in mind that the link that started this discussion was added (and argued for) by an SPA who has few edits other than to try to add that link. While it is certainly acceptable to restore the link if a resulting consensus forms to do so, the general approach through WP:EL is that ELs have to justify inclusion, not exclusion. With that in mind, I would appreciate it if you would revert your edit while the discussion is under way so that we're not going back-and-forth on this, especially given that prior comments in the discussion lean toward removing it and other links. Thank you in advance. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Malik, I understand your opinion re: one person not removing a link, but that is more applicable to a long-standing link where inclusion is supported by consensus. The situation here is quite the opposite, in that one editor (a virtual SPA at that) has added the link without consensus. We are not obligated to keep links unless consensus dictates otherwise, but instead to justify why inclusion is warranted. In the absence of consensus to keep the link, it should remain off the page and under discussion until said consensus develops. This does not in any way interfere with a cleanup of the links section, as per the desire of contributors to the discussion. Keep in mind that the primary argument so far with regards to why the link should be present has been the SPA's "Please allow ZIIC to be added to the list. They do an excellent job at Hasbarah. Superlative". By leaving in the link, we are both rewarding the apparent single-purpose posting and contributing to the clutter in the sections. --Ckatz^chat_spy 21:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Help please

I was trying to move St. Gabriel's Church back to its original title Greek Orthodox Church of the Annunciation. Unfortunately, I made a typo and moved it Greek Orthodox Church of the Annuciation instead. Now I can't move it to the title with the right spelling without admin assistance. Can you help please? The page ws moved without discussion and this title is the most common name as far as I know. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 21:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the prompt response. Tiamut^talk 22:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Activite Thermitic Material in WTC Dust

I agree 100% and you put it well "shouldn't be sourced to a newspaper opinion column".

Statements in Wikipedia should be backed by solid, scientific evidence. Will you please put the reference back to the Chemical & Physics Journal article about Active Thermitic Material, or at least allow me to put in a reference that is relevant to the sentence?

It would not be fair to put in a sentence, then cite a reference by a non-PhD who is just giving his opinion without any repeatable experiments.

Putting in a flag for "unreliable source" (meaning the San Francisco opinion) is worse than simply putting in a reliable source which truly states what the truthers allege and gives the reader useful information - the scientific research study on the dust.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cicorp (talk • contribs) 22:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, if you want a secondary source (instead of a primary source which is a scientific journal article) there are many, not even counting the truther sites. Here's one. http://www.encyclopedia.com/video/sT5IOD17gN8-nine-scientists-find-active-nanothermite.aspx

A favor please

Hi Malik, I would like to ask you for a favor please. I'd like this to be deleted from the history of my talk page. It is too cruel, too unhuman, that it is a pain for me to have it even in the history. If you could do it for me without getting yourself into troubles, it will be great. Thanks for understanding. --Mbz1 (talk) 01:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:08, 28 February 2010 (UTC)