This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Toothie3 (talk | contribs) at 06:48, 7 March 2010. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 06:48, 7 March 2010 by Toothie3 (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end. Start a new talk topic. |
 | Are you here because I deleted your article? Please read this before you leave me a message. |
| This is Malik Shabazz's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 5 days  |
|
Archives | |
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open!
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
THTHP Article
The article originally said: 'Wallace referred to "this disturbing story" and used phrases such as "black supremacy", "black racism", and "gospel of hate" to frighten the white audience, and no effort was made to balance the presentation.' This is bias because it attempts to pass off the authors opinion that Wallace used politically incorrect language to 'frighten the white audience' as fact.
I changed it to (something like): 'Wallace referred to "this disturbing story" and used phrases such as "black supremacy", "black racism", and "gospel of hate" which critics claim is politically incorrect.' This is not bias because critics do claim that this is politically incorrect language and it is prefixed with the phrase "critics claim," indicating that it is someones opinion and not fact - unlike your edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Telop (talk • contribs) 01:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks
Thank you for doublechecking. Cheerio. HoundofBaskersville (talk) 03:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Category talk
While cleaning up the category talk namespace I found this edit by you, and I wonder why you didn't delete it—I see no useful content that should be preserved in the history. Ucucha 02:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- You're right. I just deleted it. — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 02:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Al-Durrah
Actually Malik I looked at every one of his edits; and I was considering just switching the News organizations and protesters section back to here , the problem was he made that section illegible after that version. I just decided to bring it back to go. Revert me if you think I lost some good valid additions...Modernist (talk) 21:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Is that OK
The user copied my signature to it post. IMO it makes it look as I signed it, I removed it once, but my edit was reverted. Thanks.Could you please respond here. I will check on it myself.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
- .. You did sign it, at the time indicated in the timestamp that was copied. Present an alternative that would work for you. Better yet, let it go and get on with your day. Unomi (talk) 05:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
- I did not post it on that board, but at a user talk page. I do not care about the user quoting me, I just believe the user should not use my signature because it is more than misleading. I presented alternative here It was linked to the post, I only deleted my signature. BTW are you watching my contributions? Ah, who cares, if you are?--Mbz1 (talk) 05:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Mbz1. While that particular edit looks odd, what Vexorg did was copy your entire post from Gilabrand's Talk page, signature and all. I don't see anything wrong with that. — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 05:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
- I've never seen somebody did something like that before. It is misleading. It looks like I made the post in the middle of Vexorg post. In my edit
- Vexorg added two brackets at the end that make it a little clearer that you didn't post a message in the middle of Vexorg's message. And there's no reason to personalize everything. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 05:25, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
question
Hi Malik,
This seems to keep reappearing in this article: And what is the meaning of the little red dot placed at the end of the sentence by the IP? I just noticed that. Thanks. Malke2010 05:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks. I've already reverted that edit once as vandalism.Malke2010 05:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Your non-constructive edit at Richard Tylman
Nice to see you back in full harassment mode. Once again an email by Poeticbent alerting you? Did you tell Off2riorob to stop the edit warring too? Will you and Off2riorob actually join the discussion, or will you restrict your participation to personal attacks and the use of your admin tools? Pantherskin (talk) 10:38, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Your help is needed
Hey. I need your help with something. I previously asked nableezy to get involved in this, but there was a misunderstanding and I got blocked. I have also asked Tiamut, but she is unfortunately preoccupied with other things and couldn't help.
There has been an arbitration case over the Asmahan article, I am now not allowed to change the ethnicity or nationality of a person, but I am allowed to propose changes at a talkpage.
An arb explained this situation pretty good: I have now talked with the drafter of the arbitration case, User talk:Wizardman, he has told me that a third part is needed and that I am allowed to invite a neutral editor to take a look at points of corrections I have presented at the talkpage.
The article is in desperate need of neutral editors. I have pointed out 7 points of correction at the talkpage:
I would like you to take a look at them and see if changes to the article are needed.
Do you think you can get involved in this? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi again Malik - About "Jose Aranda"
Hi Malik :) I'm the one who was in charge of the Jose Aranda article. You deleted in on december because you told me to prove his notability. I did that when you restored, and I kept following your instructions, but the user JodyB just deleted the article again, can you please restore it or tell him to restore it? I thought I already proved the notability of the article, because I put references, links to the magazines, radios, webpages. I don't understand. Please and thank you.--YankeesGrey (talk) 11:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Notification about an arbcom case
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Malik Shabazz and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks, Pantherskin (talk) 11:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Your vandalism on the Pan Arabism page
Please stop your vandalism on the Pan Arabism the RS has already been discussed in length on that talk page!
Do not abuse your experience here in order to shut down people's voices & push a POV, as said already, the RS have been discusesed, you did TOO MANY REVERT EDITS in the last short amount of time.
If you have an issue with a source please feel free to discuss it on that talk page, reverting so many (DICUSSED issues) edits amounts to vandalism, you should know that by now.