User talk:Malik Shabazz

Wow

Malik, I want you to know that I feel a bit humbled and irate after reading your "fan mail." Humbled because I thought the blows I have taken because of my editing were tough - but they pale to compare to the extent which you have endured; irate because there is no Wikipropriate way to become involved in combating the bile and bigotry that have been dealt towards you. If there is ever any way that I can ally with you, meaning co-author an article about a "sensitive" topic, defend your edits, fight an AfD, etc, please do not hesitate to let me know. I admire your editing and because of what I read today will strive to further explore the boundaries of this project in terms of its tolerance and limitations towards accepting divergent histories and presents/presences. Thanks for what you do. • Freechild'sup? 23:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Elisha ben Abuyah

Sorry about that. I was actually stubing a few articles and somehow got Elisha by mistake. Thank you for the fix.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 04:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

IAJV

Hi there. I just wanted to ask you why you did a few things to the IAJV page. A number of your edits are simply factually inaccurate. For instance, IAJV did not "published an advertisement". Rather, a few people who signed the original IAJV petition chose to sign this petition also.

Secondly, there was no "coalition of organizations to oppose a Parliamentary motion congratulating Israel on its 60th anniversary". Rather, there was merely a petition that was created by one Palestinian group which was circulated to the signatories to the original IAJV petition.

Thirdly, it is very odd to call IAJV a " Australian Jewish advocacy organization that opposes some of the current Israeli government's policies". If you read their statement, they are mainly concerned with widening the range of opinions that are heard in Australia about Israel's foreign policy.

Cheers, PoliticalSuperHighway --PoliticalSuperHighway (talk) 04:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Mediation Update

Just to let you all know, the case has been started. I have created a little navbox for you to navigate between pages and will be expanded as the case goes on so that its easier for you to navigate. The first page you need to visit in this case is here so you can give youre opening statement. There i have left a few questions for you all to answer. For those that have been busy and unable to confirm their participation in the mediation, they are welcome to join the mediation at any stage.

I can be contacted in several ways in the event you need to. I am normally present on the wikipedia-en, wikipedia-medcab and wiki-hurricanes IRC channels at some point between 15:00 UTC and as late 02:00 UTC depending on college and real life commitments. To find these channels and instructions on how to access IRC go to WP:IRC. Throughout the day, even when i am in college, feel free to email me using the email tool or by emailing the email address on my user page or both to make sure. You can also leave a message on my talk page which again ill do my upmost to reply to as soon as i can. Seddon69 (talk) 20:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

"survived" changed to "freed after the"

I have started a discussion on the African American talk page. I would like you to please provide your input. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 22:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

White Privilege

In the White Privilege article, Perhaps I'm missing the difference between a writer (Matt Rosenberg) and a theorist (Noel Ignatiev, Peggy McIntosh) here? We can talk on the article page.--Knulclunk (talk) 05:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah. I see just before my Rosenberg edit, a very chatty IP added all sorts of new stuff. I will reflect upon this... --Knulclunk (talk) 13:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

happybirthdaythankyoucheers

joyeux anniversaire

Happy birthday, Malik! It's been a pleasure to work with you on Wikipedia; your dedication to thorough detail and NPOV accuracy is greatly appreciated. Enjoy some time off this weekend, and thanks for posting the Emma Goldman newsreels. I'll see you on the anti-vandalism patrol. – Scartol • Tok 23:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Zygielbojm

I merely wikified the name that was already there. Now that I looked into it it seems he was born in the village of Borowica, not Borowice. Both names refer to more than one village (and share the same etymology, BTW), but Zygielbojm's Borowica seems to be the one I linked in the article: located 13 km north of Krasnystaw (which explains why he moved between the village and the town back and forth). Regards. //Halibutt 21:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

AAMoF I checked in a short bio published in a collection of WWII documents by the PWN, so it's a pretty much reliable piece of information. Łet me know should you need more help, I'm always here :) //Halibutt 00:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

answer

You could have just answered no if you did not like my question. I was just asking, not accusing anyone or making claims. 150.108.232.26 (talk) 01:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I have also reverted your edit. Let's wait until more people answered and if it indeed deemed inappropriate, then I will remove it or it will be reverted. Please, let us solve this like reasonable men.150.108.232.26 (talk) 01:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

History of Polish Jews

- give me some time Malik..I can't do it now. I will find a good source for you and others who have doubts that this escalated anti-Semitism. I promise you will not be dissapointed with it.--Jacurek (talk) 23:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

This sentence was there for months and did not bother anybody until now. Look Malik .. Jewish domination of post war Polish Communist Government is well known and it was also very well known to the Poles at the time. Do you think that made Poles to love Jews and they became less anti-Semitic than before the war ? NO. They became more anti-Jewish. Trust me, I have been talking to dozens of old people about these times, both Jews and Poles. Meantime I will find you a good historical source which will convince you. I'm trying to be as neutral as possible while working on History of Polish Jews because it is a very sensitive subject and I would appreciate if you did the same.--Jacurek (talk) 23:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

== You are barking up the wrong tree: == whatever Malik...:) P.S. This a DISCUSSION page. Since when words TRUST, I THINK are not welcomed here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacurek (talk • contribs) 23:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Andrea Dworkin.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:Andrea Dworkin.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

please read sources carefully

Affirmative action source for first sentence is accurately quoted. Please read more carefully next time to make good faith edits. If you would like, feel free to re-word if you can do better, but it is important to highlight the historical context and change in word usage. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.110.172.111 (talk) 23:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

reverts

I would like to add that I am not starting a revert war. 1) I put up material. 2) You reverted. 3) I added source. 4) You reverted saying it was not in source. 5) I reverted and demonstrated where source was. 6) You reverted once again without reading the source.

I'm wondering if you will be civil about this, block yourself, or contribute in a constructive manner? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.110.172.111 (talk) 23:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

2 different excuses to delete the same thing. Congrats, I now know you're editing based on POV rather than facts. I don't think we'll get anything positive accomplished now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.110.172.111 (talk) 23:44, April 25, 2008 (UTC)

John S. Curtiss

Hello Malik, how have you been? This is a notable Columbia University historian who is also one of the scholarly debunkers of the Protocols of Zion. Don't you think that your Speedy Deletion tag was put up rather hastily? Please reconsider. Thanks. Ludvikus (talk) 16:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Malik, nice to learn that you are reasonable and flexible. I'll get back to you soon, after more development, with a request for removal on the notability Tag. Have a nice day. Ludvikus (talk) 17:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Sinchronized changes

Hi Malik, Thanks for your input and tidying up by sinchronizing the related templates. Keep up the good work. Sincerely, Rusty Dr. B. R. Lang (talk) 21:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Hi, Malik. Re: Sara Roy My point was "was" at AfD in that sentence. Looking at the article, there clearly was an intent to do a hatchet job on her, and highlight controversies and errors to put her in a bad light. So I added a bit and neutralized some. But I think AfDing should be the last step, especially if a tendentious editor is no longer there to cause trouble and revert BLP content deletions.. As I said she is the world's leading expert on her subject (Norman Finkelstein calls her the world's leading authority on the Gaza Strip, period.[1]) and so is clearly notable and prominent. I don't know about the sockpuppeteer who wrote the article, but not all contributions of even serious rule breakers are all negative. Cheers,John Z (talk) 02:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I can see better now why the article needed / needs drastic changes. Particularly silly to emphasize politics / Hamas insinuating she's some kind of Hamas auxiliary when her expertise is in economics, and the part about the position she hasn't taken is a good laugh. Glad we're close to agreement. John Z (talk) 04:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

May 2008

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to Nadia Abu El Haj, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Palestinian territories‎

Greetings, Malik. A clash has developed at the cited page that I believe could benefit from your experienced help. Could you have a look at the recent history? Perhaps you will know a better way to handle this situation and break the present deadlock. Thanks in advance, and very best wishes, Hertz1888 (talk) 21:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Obama Image on African American page

forestgomp (talk) 01:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

re: my removal of image of Barack Obama from African American page (history: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=African_American&action=history)

It DOES make sense to discuss Obama on the page as a trailblazing African American in the context of the election. But the image by itself lacks relevance. I suggest it either be removed per my edit or augmented with appropriate text to provide context.

"On The Jewish Question"

Greetings, Malik shabazz, hope you are well. But with these quotes? Are you responsinle for that? I have no idea what that means? To me it's just sloppy. Otherwise, Cheers. --Ludvikus (talk) 01:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• Check the cite: [2] --Ludvikus (talk) 01:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• Maybe you misunderstood me. I'm asking about what you've been doing here: [3] : --Ludvikus (talk) 03:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • As you can see it's the Disambiguation page. I'm trying to figure what who wants what there. That's where these quotes come in. And I thought you would check the articles being disabiguated. So please let me know what your view is so I don't end up spinning my wheels endlessly. Cheers. --Ludvikus (talk) 03:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Shabazz! I do not understnd what you are say here:

    cur) (last)  03:25, 3 May 2008 Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) m (801 bytes)
   (Reverted good faith edits by Ludvikus;
   (a) references to "The Jewish Question" precede all others,
   (b) the description of the Final Solution comes from that article. (TW)) (undo)

• • Explain what your concern is, please. --Ludvikus (talk) 03:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Szmul Zygielbojm.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Szmul Zygielbojm.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Revisionism

Let's Discuss it. I will abide by the consesus. And look at my reference. --Ludvikus (talk) 16:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• I've answered you on this on my page. --Ludvikus (talk) 16:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Cemetery

Many thanks for filling up the Waldheim Cemetery ... I'm more used to people wishing to cfd them. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 19:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Marx/Engels Collected Works

I don't think we need the LOC entry at all, and the contents should probably be summarized in some fashion rather than listed in full; but I think there are in principle interesting things we could say about the books - for instance, if, as I believe, they contained the first and/or only translations of certain works by Marx and Engels, that would be worth mentioning. Also, a discussion of their reception in the academic world would be helpful - the Marx Internet Archive link in the article says that MECW contains the most authoritative translations of Marx; this is probably something that has been debated by Marx scholars. The publishing history seems potentially interesting, too, as the collection appears to have been a collaboration between the (Stalinist) Progress Publishers and the (Trotskyist) International Publishers. Perhaps, in the end, there isn't enough to say about this work to justify an article, but I don't think it's something that's deserving of immediate deletion. VoluntarySlave (talk) 21:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Iraq War activist criteria

"Not everyone who is against the Iraq War is a pacifist, an advocate of nonviolence, a conscientious objector, or against warfare in all circumstances: i.e. a anti-war activist."

--Thoughtman (talk) 05:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)