User talk:Malik Shabazz

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 when more than 2 sections are present.

What do you think about this?

Category:Blacks only organizationscreated by User:Wlmg today. Mitchumch (talk) 21:22, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think a person who spends his time creating such a category (just so he can include the Congressional Black Caucus, the Miss Black America pageant, and the Miss Black USA Pageant) and adding articles to non-existent categories such as Category:Men married to former LGBTQ people is probably here to push an agenda and not to build an encyclopedia. But that's just my opinion. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:00, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a POV pusher & NOTHERE? Roger that. I'll take that with a grain of salt from a defrocked administrator, but that's just my opinion.Wlmg (talk) 03:57, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can take it with as many grains of salt as you'd like, but do you really have nothing better to do with your time than add articles to imaginary categories? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:27, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah what of it? What's Mallik have to with it unless the category is being brought up for deletion. Then he can weigh in. Wlmg (talk) 22:09, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating the category for deletion—what a wonderful idea! — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:00, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet? Concerning your participation in a RfC using two different accounts.

Concerning your contribution to this article's Talk page. I have discovered that you are using multiple accounts to edit the same discussion concerning a RfC. Using two different accounts to participate in a single RfC would seem to be against policy. Your action has been less than transparent and could be construed as sockpuppetry. Thus the following questions - Why are you using two accounts to edit this discussion? Do you believe this is within policy? Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 19:04, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Veritycheck: I've closed the case with no action taken. MShabazz is a clearly marked alternate account (presumably for phone editing), and as such is perfectly acceptable as per WP:VALIDALT. GAB^gab 22:10, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Veritycheck, you really must be a moron. I recommended that you click on User:Malik Shabazz and User:MShabazz to learn the relationship. Either page would have led you to WP:VALIDALT. Please click on blue links once in a while to learn Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and stop wasting other editors' time because you're too lazy to do so. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:26, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Posted a response here. No need for name calling. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 22:57, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 17 January 2017

From the editor: Next steps for the Signpost

News and notes: Surge in RFA promotions—a sign of lasting change?

Interview: What is it like to edit Wikipedia when you're blind?

In the media: Year-end roundups, Wikipedia's 16th birthday, and more

Featured content: One year ends, and another begins

Arbitration report: Concluding 2016 and covering 2017's first two cases

Traffic report: Out with the old, in with the new

Technology report: Tech present, past, and future

Recent research: Female Wikipedians aren't more likely to edit women biographies; Black Lives Matter in Wikipedia

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:39, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Questioning Karmel Portal as Reliable Source

Hi Shabbaz, I would like for you to clear something up for me. I cited this local news outlet as a source,^[1] and you removed it and wrote that the burden to prove that it is reliable is on me. I have researched the reliability guidelines, and nothing on that website would lead to believe that it is unreliable. Furthermore, the idea of "good faith" and of "innocent until proven guilty" should apply here as well. The burden should not be on myself to prove that something is reliable, rather it should be on you to show me something of the website that would make it not reliable. I would appreciate if you could point to me and tell me exactly what about the Karmel Portal makes it unreliable. PasterofMuppets (talk) 14:04, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.karmel.co.il/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

Does the Karmel Portal have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"? Have they been cited as a source in other articles? There is no "innocent until proven guilty" rule that applies to obscure sources. The burden of proof is on the person who wishes to add material to the article. See WP:BURDEN. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 15:15, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

January 2017

To enforce an arbitration decision and for your personal attacks on others ("dickhead", "moron") in the context of discussions about the WP:ARBIPA topic area, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 4 days. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. Sandstein 19:32, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

This is a discretionary sanction per WP:AC/DS, about which you have been previously notified. The block duration is, as usual, double the time of your most recent block for similar conduct. I saw your "dickhead" comment by chance after following a RfC link from WP:CENT, and I couldn't believe my eyes at first. Disparaging others with swearwords is entirely unacceptable conduct under any and all circumstances, especially by veteran editors. I appreciate your good contributions in many topic areas, but you must really not let your temper get the better of you. Regards, Sandstein 19:34, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://www.karmel.co.il/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

[1]