Jump to content

User talk:Malik Shabazz

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 108.85.32.175 (talk) at 03:03, 30 December 2012 (→‎Bishop Jones: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

User:Malik Shabazz/Tabs

On second thought

I would like to file an RfC for this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Racism_and_ethnic_discrimination_in_the_United_States). I think some of the edits I've proposed are a good idea, and some were simple corrections of grammar. Others are more controversial. I will leave it alone until there is a new consensus.

My apologies for the edit warring earlier. I have had a series of experiences on here that have made me exponentially less trusting of IP editors like the one who initially reverted me. That's not an excuse of course, just an explanation.Evildoer187 (talk) 04:47, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead with the RfC. Please leave the article alone or I will report you for edit-warring. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:56, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Check this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Antisemitism_in_Europe

I reverted the edits, copied my version and pasted it in the talk page, and then reverted it back. This way I could let my edits speak for themselves while avoiding an edit war. Nevertheless, I will explain myself in there as soon as I'm done checking on the other articles.Evildoer187 (talk) 01:03, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Search for a mentor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tiggerjay#Hello

He has not responded. As for nableezy, I have apologized to him.Evildoer187 (talk) 04:39, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Tiggerjay hasn't edited in more than a week, but that's not unusual this time of year.
As far as nableezy is concerned, I don't care that you called him an anti-Zionist. You can't go around accusing other editors of approving of the Protocols—that is, of being antisemites. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:46, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't call him an antisemite, or say that he approved of it. I was trying to say that Sand's views are about as credible and widely supported as the Protocols are. Both are championed by the Stormfront crowd, and the extremist elements of the Palestinian solidarity campaign, and.....very few other people. That's all I meant. As for calling him an anti-Zionist, yes I did call him that. But I deleted it.

Perhaps I am spending too much time on here.Evildoer187 (talk) 04:49, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody who disagrees with you about Sand must be part of the Stormfront crowd? Is that really what you're saying? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:55, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, I wasn't. Although the way I worded my post may have implied that I was. I will try to be more careful in the future.Evildoer187 (talk) 05:14, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On an unrelated note, I believe these two accounts may be sock puppets of one another.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/216.106.111.168

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/99.248.114.33

The similarity of their edits is a little too suspicious to ignore. Perhaps one of these IPs is his home account, and the other was posted from a local library.Evildoer187 (talk) 04:54, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war

There is an edit war/neutrality issue going on here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Settler_colonialism

Evildoer187 (talk) 05:08, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Evildoer187

Malik Shabazz, are you his mentor?

Please take a look at the comments Evildoer187 has left on my Talk page, as well as the corresponding Talk page discussions related to the aforementioned article. --Ubikwit (talk) 05:30, 25 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit[reply]

Hi Ubikwit. I'm not Evildoer187's mentor, but I've been trying to counsel them on proper Wikipedia behavior. I'll look into the situation, but at first glance it looks like the edit warring notice Evildoer187 left you was inappropriate. I don't see any edit-warring going on. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:44, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Malik, I think you did the right thing in issuing the block, as I have been having to spend more time than one would think necessary trying to convince him to edit in a source-based reasonable manner.

I hope that I wasn't presumptuous in re-reverting the reversion by Evildoer187 to the edit on the Settler colonialism article. It appeared that 3RR is in effect on that article. I should perhaps point out that I simply removed the prefacing sentence, as the section doesn't seem to need one. I had originally replaced his prefacing sentence with one that I believe was more neutral, but wasn't arguing to have that included, just to have the (anti-source) POV pushing removed.

For your reference--maybe you haven't seen the details--here is a sockpuppetry case I filed against him a few days ago. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Evildoer187/Archive

diff1

And this related discussion: User_talk:Evildoer187#Sockpuppetry

Here is a diff for another comment from another IP address (72.48.252.105, first Wikipedia edit) made under the RfC that doesn't address the subject matter of the RfC: diff2

In my interactions with him I haven't see one aspect of his editing behavior where he has been anything but incorrigible, if not regressive. Moreover, if the sockpuppetry was actually him, that would seem to represent a turn for the worse.--Ubikwit (talk) 14:30, 25 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit[reply]

This is getting more involved by the hour Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Ubikwit_reported_by_User:AnkhMorpork_.28Result:_.29--Ubikwit (talk) 19:26, 25 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit[reply]

..


Seasons greetings to you and yours
Dougweller (talk) 14:11, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Season's tidings!

To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:54, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 December 2012

Colonialism

I have removed a reference to Israel in the Colonialism article, since there isn't a broad enough consensus that firmly establishes Israel as a colonial state. Moreover, it is a controversial and arguably POV-based inclusion that ignores the various counter-arguments that have been made against such characterization. I have initiated a discussion on the talk page there. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Colonialism#Israel

Evildoer187 (talk) 06:30, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your note. I don't intend to start monitoring that article, nor have I examined the edits you made, but that seems like the right approach to take.
I'm curious, though, when you say there isn't a "broad enough consensus": among whom? Wikipedia editors? Reliable sources? In general, Wikipedia should report the lack of a scholarly consensus, not take sides in a dispute. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 07:00, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All of the above. You will find many who disagree, both on Wikipedia and in the real world. There is no scholarly consensus either, as I have demonstrated on the settler colonialism page. On the other hand, countries like the United States, Canada, Australia, and South Africa have a widely recognized heritage of European colonialism, subjugation of the indigenous people, and forced assimilation to an inherently foreign culture. The same can't be said for Israel.Evildoer187 (talk) 07:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I had to delete your most recent comment on my page, as I fear there might still be a certain someone prowling on my talk page, digging for dirt. I am uncomfortable with anyone monitoring my activity on here.Evildoer187 (talk) 07:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Americans of Levantine-Greek Orthodox Christian descent

Dear M.Sh., Since you seem to be a rather rational soul... & had shown some interest for the « American of Levantine-Greek Orthodox Christian descent» category, I’m writing to draw your attention on the fact that some Wiki-Boeotians want to delete it ! Your help in the current « deletion debate » would be appreciated Cordially, --B.Andersohn (talk) 15:47, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi B.Andersohn. I'm afraid I don't have anything to contribute to the CfD discussion. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 16:46, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not allowed to edit categories anymore?

No, that's not a sarcastic question. One of my revisions you just deleted was, in fact, from at least a month ago. Furthermore, I was under the impression that Yiddish was a Semitic language, not an Indo-European one. However, it turns out I was wrong.Evildoer187 (talk) 16:43, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe you understand the purpose of categories, and I feel your editing in that area is disruptive. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 16:49, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to take that as a yes.Evildoer187 (talk) 16:51, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have read the WP:Categorization article.Evildoer187 (talk) 17:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your input

As former participant of discussion regarding "Palestinian National Authority and Palestinian people" template at Template_talk:Palestinian nationalism#Proposed_merger, you may be interested in participating in discussion over its rename at Template_talk:Palestinian_National_Authority_and_the_Palestinian_people#Requested move.Greyshark09 (talk) 20:27, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what the talk page is for

I just don't know how to post sources without saying what they are and refer to.

I did leave a new section talking about the sources. However, I am looking for a place to make an actual argument whether or not it is apartheid. Compromising on truth seems wrong to me. The title of the page is misleading. I left the questions on the page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Israel_and_the_apartheid_analogy#Interesting_source

--Zanadov (talk) 20:45, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think you do understand. The Talk page isn't the place to argue whether Israel is an apartheid state. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:58, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BLP advice

Please advise whether I may have this on my talk page. Ankh.Morpork 21:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ankh. That's a good question. The quote is attributed, but Wikileaks isn't a reliable source. To be on the safe side, I would recommend against keeping it on your page. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:23, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Even with attribution and without naming the individual? Can you suggest a way in which I can make some reference to these emails while avoiding BLP problems? Ankh.Morpork 21:33, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ankh, if you do not name the BLP then the issue is moot. However it is a primary source so you cannot use it in an article. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:38, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I don't know. You might want to check with somebody else. I may just be overly cautious, having been warned after I once referred to a living person as a lunatic on an article's Talk page... — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:41, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

The Barnstar of Diligence
Thank you for all your tireless work clearing out C:CSD day after day, I know it's sometimes a thankless task! delldot ∇. 23:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bishop Jones

Thanks for your help... I am the creator of the page for Bishop Jones - I'm the HR administrator for Anglican Chaplains and Bishop Jones needed to be on Wiki (he's done way too much not to be on there). I see that the title for the article was changed to a more common wiki format and I'm thinking you're the one who did it for me. Being new to this, how do I add the picture that was put into the commons onto the article? Thanks, Lauren. (AnglicanChaplains)--108.85.32.175 (talk) 03:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Malik_Shabazz&oldid=530393439"