David Souter

Your words

I know you don't want to post in ArbCom, yet Boody continues to cite you, claiming that you agree with him. A short statement whether and to what extent you agree with him would be appreciated.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

(Sorry for bursting in Malik). Yet again mischaracterizing, Piotrus, and in this case, falsely describing my post in order to pressure Malik. Do you have a quote where I "claim that Malik agrees with me? If not, then please cease these endless self serving twistings of facts. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 21:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Second intifada

Your thinking on "sticking to what is in the article" is intrinsically flawed. It seems to indicate that Wiki should parrot secondary sources rather than explain, clarify or condense etc. As second intifada is in the article it is quite permissible to explain IN THE ARTICLE that the second intifada was a Palestinian uprising. It also helps to explain where the JIDF are coming from. re adding that to JIDF.

second intifada IS mentioned in the source cited!!! but not explained!!! Opiumjones 23 (talk) 09:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

To lighten the load I am leaving you this youtube link [1] Good nightOpiumjones 23 (talk) 23:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

For your help in trying to maintain accuracy and clarity on the JIDF article. --Einsteindonut (talk) 21:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Motzei Sheim Rah

Hey, you owe me an an apology. Chodesh elul is no time to be hating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saxophonemn (talk • contribs) 10:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Glad everything is cool now. Thanks for the help, my archive worked pretty well until I copied something else in between.

Shana Tova --Saxophonemn (talk) 17:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Template:African American ethnicity

Regarding this template, the long-running edit war between you and User:Therock40756 has come to my attention. As there has been no discussion of whatever the disagreement is, I have protected the template against all editors for 5 days. Although it is presently on your preferred version, this is not an endorsement of that version. I would ask you to leave a note on the template's talk page explaining your position and inviting comment from the other party. If on the expiry of the protection the edit war resumes, I will block both of you without further warning since such a long-term edit war without any effort at resolution is not acceptable. I will also ask User:Therock40756 to leave a note on the template's talk page, so please keep an eye out for that and engage with the discussion when it appears. Regards, Splash - tk 15:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's useful information. However, it does take two to tango, as they say, and you have been reverting his ever edit rather than looking for a compromise. This is despite the fact that it's not really all that important who's in the picture. One way of demonstrating a consensus is if multiple people agree with you and there is a 'lone warrior' who is thereby easier to block. But a one-on-one war will only result in both parties getting burned before long. Splash - tk 16:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey, No Problem

And, again, congratulations on your new GA :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 02:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I have every right

To edit articles on Wikipedia. My edits make sense. Perhaps you should review them and discuss them before with me you threaten to support a block. This doesn't have to be a society of people "telling" or threatening to "tell" on each other for every little thing. I personally can discuss things like an adult. If you want to support a block, that is fine by me, spare me the warning and just go ahead and do it, because I'm going to edit the way I think I need to edit something in order to strive toward NPOV, accuracy, and factual, cited information. If these are things in which you do not strive toward, then go ahead and recommend a block. --Einsteindonut (talk) 01:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

African diaspora

Brazil has the largest black population outside the continent of Africa, not the United States. You are wrong in your deletion. Fclass (talk) 02:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

What the hell are you talking about? Brazil has the largest black population. Just because most of them say they are brown doesn't mean they're not of African descent. You're not smarter than me. Fclass (talk) 02:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Smartypants, huh? Ha ha. Very funny. Fclass (talk) 02:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I noticed your userboxes. Are you mixed? P.S. You don't have to answer the question if you don't want to. Fclass (talk) 02:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I was just curious. That's all. Fclass (talk) 14:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Question

How did you make your contributions appear alongside your talk page when posting a message? Fclass (talk) 14:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

How would I be able to link it? Give me the steps on what you did. Don't be vague. Fclass (talk) 01:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

How do you make the dot go in the middle? How many spaces must there be? Do I type in the box above "raw signature"? Fclass (talk) 02:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Forget it. Sorry I bothered you. Fclass (talk) 02:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Explanation

I guess I was just trying to make a few explanations on why people don't know their full heritage. I have no plans on adding anything else at all. I felt that's all it needed so a person that's oblivious understands the issue. I was trying not to get off track because the subject gets complicated because then you can go into African American and Chinese mix which occurred during the railroads being built. But I hope I'm not getting off the topic my mind can be complex just trying to get one point across. :) Mcelite (talk) 20:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Ceramics classes for seniors aside

User:Einsteindonut's important new source also states re the groups political and Zionist position "It’s political views place it on the Zionist right." see [2] Malik can you work that in too? Opiumjones 23 (talk) 22:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Paul M. Fleiss

I was in an edit conflict with you and may have deleted something in error. I called Paul and Mike is his cousin. I thought brother since Jesse calls him "Uncle Mike". I will be seeing Paul at a meeting of Hollywood Hill and at CFI West tonight, if any sources seem quesitonable. Regarding age, you are correct about Mike, but interrestingly, Paul's father entered colledge at about age 15 ,and med school at about age 18, but I have to source this before adding it, as it is just from memory. Tautologist (talk) 18:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom

Thanks, I fixed it up. The whole thing is rather Byzantine. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 20:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The City Sun

On 27 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The City Sun, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 05:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Need some help

I wanted to slightly refactor your comments here. Do you mind if I "number" your comments? If you want to do it, that would be better (so I don't get reverted by someone thinking I'm doing something wrong). It would make it easier for me to discuss each of your points. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Need some help, too

Sorry to bother you, but could you archive Talk:List of electronic music genres? Thanks for your time. Fclass (talk) 19:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a bit too hard and advanced for me. Maybe you should do it. Fclass (talk) 19:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

can you help

I do not want to get into an edit war with Putty again, but again, he's trying to take out cited information from the JIDF article. I made this edit after you urged me to add info. from the CJN in the "talk" area. It's clearly taken directly from that RS and Putty, again, is clearly trying to take key points out. Any help would be appreciated. --Einsteindonut (talk) 22:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much. --Einsteindonut (talk) 04:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: African American topics sidebar

Good points. How about I make it semi-protected...it'll keep out most potential vandalism, yet allow for normal editing. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 02:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Oliver Cromwell (disambiguation)

Hello. I've reverted your addition to this page because it didn't meet the criteria at WP:MOSDAB red links - basically, he doesn't have an article and he doesn't have a red link and information in several existing articles. I felt bad to do so, though, because he sounds interesting, so if you start an article on him in the future, please add him back on to the dab. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 07:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Hi Malik. I did an edit to the holiday page, based on your enquiry. The Union for Reform Judaism lists the holiday as being two days, not one, but the fact on the ground is that about half of Reform Jews (in North America, at least) only observe one day - congregations included - and this was the classical nineteenth century Reform way. Have a year of health & happiness. Best, A Sniper (talk) 06:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

L'shanah tovah...

Thank you, my friend, and Vchayn L'mar. (Although, there's still only one of me, my diet success or failure notwithstanding , unless you mean my doppelganger accounts too . -- Avi (talk) 20:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

African-American pioneers

Hello. I have added some Wiki pages regarding the pioneers I have discussed. For the many pioneers I have already added to the "List of African-American firsts" to have been discarded simply because a vocal minority feel them to be irrelevant is not only insulting (and a waste of my valuable time), but a display of extreme arrogance (i.e. "because I haven't heard of it, it must not be notable"). It is my hope that these pioneers will be returned to the page, particularly given the large audience the page has received ever since I linked it to Barack Obama's page. Thank you. ---- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shotcallerballerballer (talk • contribs) 23:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

sockpuppet/Checkuser thread

Thanks for the clarification. I think it's a bit rich who the request is coming from given User Talk:NoCal100#Edit warring at List of fictional ducks (oh, and your username, while I'm here). User:MegaMom would be my guess at puppetmaster.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Assume good faith and no personal attacks

Dear Malik. I hoped we could avoid radicalization and edit cooperatively, with respect to one another. However your recent posts have repeatedly crossed the line, as you assume bad faith regarding my actions and continue to discuss and defame my person. I'd like you to refactor your incivil comments about me (ex. accusation of "Jew-baiting", accusation of "recruit(ing) edit warriors", accusations of "vandalism and POINT") and refrain from making such uncivil accusations in the future.

Also, you have not apologized nor explained your inappropriate encouragement of disruptive behavior by Boody (you gave him a Barnstar "For going to the mat against a cabal of POV-pushing Polish chauvinists") after he was blocked for 3RR and sendign me a "you are a dick emails"]. If you had moderated him, not encouraged, perhaps he would not be inching closer and closer to an indef.

Finally, please be mindful of this past ArbCom ruling about incivility in Eastern European topics.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Social Security (United States)

Malik, I appreciate your efforts to improve the above article. However, the statement you reverted is factually untrue. "Return on investment" is a finance term with a specific meaning, and the way it is used in the article is clearly wrong. Saying that someone who gets, say, $9.50 for every $1 invested is getting a much lower return on investment compared to someone who gets $1 for every $1 invested, is factually inaccurate.

Thanks,

Dmclaurin (talk) 23:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Ruby McCollum

Dear Mr. Shabazz:

Thank you for visiting my original article on Ruby McCollum listed with Wikipedia, and making me mindful of the need for references on the site. When I wrote the original article, it was contributed for others to augment. I will also have to admit that, at the time, I did not take Wikipedia seriously, considering it a passing fancy. Now, after reviewing numerous articles on Wikipedia, I have come to believe that it serves a useful purpose for those who are trying to conduct serious research.

What happened after I posted the article was that the granddaughter of Keith Black attacked it, as well as me, personally, by firing off articles to the Florida Historical Society and other forums where I have spoken. In a scathing personal letter, she made many erroneous statements, to which I responded with a civil letter, outlining various references (and photographs) that proved my points. Perhaps the most humorous of her misstatements was that her grandfather was bald, not "balding," and that I could not have possibly ever seen him. I cited not only my own memory of the man, but furnished her with a photo of him taken two years after the trial, showing him with a full side of hair and a bald spot in back. I also quoted Zora Hurston's description of him in her notes of the trial as having a bald spot on the back of his head "as clearly outlined as the tonsor of a monk."

Please take another look at the Ruby McCollum listing and see if the references that I have given are in keeping with both the extent and format of Wikipedia. I have a host of other newspaper articles, as well as Hurston's letters, that could add to the documentation, but it will be after the end of the year before I have the time to update the article with these.

While it is not necessary to post it on the site, many of the above-referenced newspaper articles, published when the feds cleaned up the Klan in north Florida, implicated Keith Black as a ring leader in bolita, not so much for his direct participation, but for his "protection" of Sam McCollum's operation in exchange for money. I did add the Ocala Star Banner to document one portion of Black's involvement.

If you will be so kind as to furnish your mailing address, I will send along a review copy of my latest novel, Zora Hurston and the Strange Case of Ruby McCollum, to be released by Gadfly Publishing on 2/12/09. I am trying to coordinate with Ebony for a review of the novel in celebration of Black History Month in 2009.

While it is buried in history, the trial of Ruby McCollum was covered by the Pittsburgh Courier, Ebony/Jet magazine, the New York Times, the London Times, and every major newspaper in the southeastern United States. As Hurston noted, it was truly a major trial of its century, marking the first time that a "colored" woman was allowed to witness as to the paternity of a child that she was forced to bear by a white man.

Thanks again for your attention and kind assistance.

Warm Regards,

C. Arthur Ellis, Jr., Ph.D. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.24.122 (talk) 01:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Template:Racism topics

Please see the talk page. Thanks, Agorist (talk) 04:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Poverty in the United States

I see you keep erasing all my entries to the Poverty in the United States article. But you left intact all the stuff from liberal think tanks. The article is supposed to be balanced. Liberals are not supposed to have a monopoly on having their sources in articles. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I just read your message.

The article has a section called "From Poverty to Prosperity" which supports the liberal stance on political issues, but you didn't erase that.

It says:

"In April 2007 The Center for American Progress, a think tank, released a report : "From Poverty to Prosperity: A National Strategy to Cut Poverty in Half". It recommended 12 steps to cut poverty in half by 2017, including raising the minimum wage, expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit, and promoting unionization by enacting the Employee Free Choice Act."

I actually wrote that, because prior to that, the section had quoted 12 entire paragraphs from the same source, which is too much to quote from one source. But I didn't erase the section - I made it better.

You didn't have any problem with that section promoting a liberal point of view, because you didn't erase it.

The reason I addded the stuff about out of wedlock births is because the article said:

"Limited job opportunities appear to exist for significant subgroups of some races and ethnic groups. This is reflected by the low-income nature of large sections of the economy, as divided along racial/ethnic lines: 21% of all children in the United States live in poverty, but 46% of African American children and 40% of Latino children live in poverty.[22]"

That wrongly implies that poverty is caused by racism. So I added information to show that among black and white children raised by married parents, the poverty rate is very low. So it's out of wedlock births, not racism, that is the biggest factor in poverty

You erased what I added, but you didn't erase the liberal stuff that wrongly blamed poverty on racism.

The article said:

"Tax levels Cross-country data shows a correlation between tax levels as a share of GDP and child poverty. [21]"

That's too vague - it doesn't say what the specific correlation is.

So I added specific information about taxes.

You erased my specific information, but you left the vague stuff in.

The reason I added the stuff about housing costs is because the article said housing in California was very expensive, but it didn't explain why. So I added stuff to explain why.

You have not erased any of the pro-liberal stuff in the article. You have only erased stuff that is pro-conservative and pro-libertarian.

If you want to erase stuff with a political bias, then why haven't you erased any of the pro-liberal stuff? Grundle2600 (talk) 22:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

If you think it's wrong for the article to mention Wall St. Journal editorials that explain how unions drive away investment and jobs, then why do you simultaneously think it's OK for the article to mention a liberal think tank which favors more unionization to reduce poverty? I would prefer that the article has both of those things. But if you erase one because it's biased, then why didn't you erase the other one too? So the anti-union stuff is biased, but the pro-union stuff is neutral. Why is that? Grundle2600 (talk) 22:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

It's interesting that you erased my stuff about the Wall St. Journal editorials that explain how pro-union policies drive away investment and jobs, but you didn't erase the stuff about "promoting unionization by enacting the Employee Free Choice Act." Why did you only erase the anti-union stuff, but leave the pro-union stuff in the article? Grundle2600 (talk) 22:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

OK. I saw your message on the article's talk page. So I guesss if I cited one source instead of 3, and it specifically talked about poverty, I could include it. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Velvet underground Songs.

I know this was a while ago but I'd like to know why you deleted the entries on "the ostrich" and "sneaky pete" from the article List of songs by The Velvet Underground. If recordings with Nico, Cale and Reed are included I don't see why ones with Reed, Cale, Sterling and their original drummer shouldn't be. I assure you these are real recordings, I have the album sitting on my desk at the moment. I will post about this in the talk page of that article and will re-add them if i don't see any dissent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loganrah (talk • contribs) 23:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)