User talk:Malik Shabazz

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

Speedy deletion of Sahar (TV station)

Hi. May I ask if you had a look at the edit history of Sahar (TV station) before speedily deleting it? The BBC does consider it important. Regards, - Ankimai (talk) 22:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Unblock?

Hey Malik. Not sure as to the etiquitte surrounding undoing other admins article blocks, but if you see this conversation you'll note that the block for this article is no longer needed. I contacted the blocking admin but based on his contribs I think he is on vacation. Any chance you might unblock for us? NickCT (talk) 14:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Gracias amigo. NickCT (talk) 18:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Old, unused account

Hi Malik I have an old account who made some decent contributions whose edits I would like to "absorb" into my current account. Is this possible and if so which noticeboard should I ask this for at?

The account was never blocked, was not disruptive and last made an edit in 2004 and hasn't been used since. It's not a sockpuppet; When I rejoined Wikipedia in 2009 I just plain forgot about this old account and have never used it for anything. I can't remember the password any more either so I can't "prove" that the old account was mine.

I don't want to start a sockpuppet drama, though, and if that is going to happen I don't want to bother with this at all. Factomancer (talk) 03:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Adult children of alcoholics

I would like to see a copy of the deleted page, to see if and where it can be made to fit into Wikipedia guidelines. I have read your reasons for deletion and I would like to see how they apply to the article as written. I would also appreciate any comments and observation you have in this direction. I cannot remember my password and account info, so signing this will only be my IP. I hope to recover my account information soon. Thank you for your help. KMB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.108.146.12 (talk) 08:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

It would help me quite a bit if you would tell me (a) the specific name of the deleted article or (b) the specific Username that you used to create it. Without one of those facts, I'm unable to find any such article that I've deleted. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, here is a link to the page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adult_Children_of_Alcoholics I was not the original author. When I saw there was no page I decided to write one, but I did not want to make the same mistakes as the previous author. I am not sure if the original page was about the subject of adult children of alcoholics in general, or specifically the 12 step fellowship Adult Children of Alcoholics. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.108.150.68 (talk) 05:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi. The article was about the organization, but all it said was that:

• Adult Children of Alcoholics is an international organization providing a twelve-step program of recovery for for adults whose lives were affected as a result of being raised in an alcoholic or other dysfunctional family.
• ACA was founded in 1978 in New York. It broke away from Al-Anon.
• Some Al-Anon/Alateen groups focus on adult children of alcoholics. Such groups are easy to identify in the meeting directories.

An encyclopedia article has to say something more about a group. What makes them "notable"? What have reliable sources, such as newspapers and magazines, said about the group?

If you'd like to expand on the article and add references to it, I'd be happy to restore it for you. Let me know what you think. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Given that information I see how I can write a new one that I believe will be within the proper guidelines. I will do some research and get back to you soon. Thank you again for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.108.150.68 (talk) 05:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Your post on Duke53's talk page

I guess that kind of response you just made there is dropping directly to his level. I myself, have already made the mistake of being uncivil to Duke53, and guess what? It doesn't work. If anything it encourages him. Its quite clearly his behaviour is a problem, he clearly has no intention to stop, but I'd recommend you move away from leaving him messages like that. For like I said, I have already approached him in a intolerant and "bad faith" manner. He tried to use against me again and and again, and although others weren't prepared to listen to his remarks, his replies created a nuisance disrupting several pages and inticed arguments. Rather, if you "cut off the oxygen" (in other words don't feed him), he'll go quiet and resume his more constructive less regular mode of editing. But I agree, certainly needs to practice what he preeches) Routerone (talk) 17:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Malik, both your posts on Talk:Responses to the 2006 Duke University lacrosse case recently and his talk page were violations of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Duke53 then went off and baited you further, which I am about to go do something about given his earlier warnings, but you were off base to start with.

I believe your factual point on the list being easy to find and not necessary for the article per se is valid. However, this is a content issue, and we expect people to discuss content issues constructively and come to mutual consensus about how to resolve them. The other party there wasn't violating policy, only style issues, and there's no need to get that upset with someone over style.

I urge you to try to engage more productively and politely with other editors on that talk page.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:36, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Ping

Did you get my @? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)