Kellyzzz05

August 2016

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at 2016 Milwaukee riot. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:12, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

2016 Milwaukee riot

If you think that's the cause of the riot, please produce a reliable source that says so. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:15, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

He was armed. You are just trying to cover up the truth. It may not matter to you if he was armed or not because your name represents a man who is a member of the hate group New Black Panther Party, but from a non bias egalitarian perspective certain details are important.

The Anti-Defamation League, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights consider the New Black Panthers to be a hate group.

References

The wikipedia article that shares the same name as your username Malik_Zulu_Shabazz (Is that you, or are you just copying his name by the way?)

"police shoot man" is biased against the police because the man was armed. This does not explain what caused the police to shoot.

"police shoot armed man" is not biased as he was an armed man. This shows what caused the police to shoot the man.

User:Kellyzzz05 ^Talk/_Stalk 23:45, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

First, I am not Malik Zulu Shabazz. We both chose our "names" to honor Malcolm X. Second, I wrote the Wikipedia article about Malik Zulu Shabazz; you don't have to quote it to me.

Finally, as I wrote, there are many, many sources that say there was a riot because the police shot and killed a man. I have yet to see a single source that says the cause of the riot was that the police shot and killed an armed man. If you can find one, please produce it and I will add it to the article myself.

The article says (several times) that the man the police shot was armed. But that is different from what the infobox says about the cause of the riot. Do you understand the difference? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:33, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to 2016 Milwaukee riot, you may be blocked from editing. Meiloorun (talk) 🍁 23:54, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Kellyzzz05, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Kellyzzz05! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like 78.26 (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:02, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

August 2016

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to 2016 Milwaukee riot, you may be blocked from editing. Parsley Man (talk) 00:33, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

On a side-note, in regards to this edit summary, first of all, I really doubt mainstream media is rated THAT low. You're going to have to link me to the study to convince me that. Second of all, it doesn't matter what the approval rating is; if Wikipedia considers something a reliable source, then it's a reliable source, no matter if it's mainstream. Parsley Man (talk) 00:38, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at 2016 Milwaukee riots. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 00:42, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at 2016 Milwaukee riots. We must maintain a neutral point of view. -- Dane2007 ^talk 01:00, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

September 2016

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on African American–Jewish relations. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:03, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Hello71. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Antisemitism— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. ⁓ Hello71 15:48, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Nazism, you may be blocked from editing. RolandR (talk) 19:46, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Antisemitism. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 19:48, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Doug Weller talk 07:16, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

If this editor appeals, it is my opinion that it should only be granted with an indefinite topic ban from all pages related to race, ethnic groups and religion, broadly construed. Doug Weller talk 07:19, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Kellyzzz05 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Dear Wikipedia administrators. If you identify as a Modern Liberal (Classical liberals are acceptable), Globalist, Democrat, Social Justice Warrior, Socialist, Social Democrat, Leftist, Zionist, Communist, hate groups / terrorists too or anything else related to this toxic spectrum please return to your echo chamber where you have your safe space, and trigger warnings await you. Move along as you are incapable of passing fair judgment upon me due to prejudice, and cognitive bias. Anybody left? I hope so... Wikipedia seems to lack intellectual diversity in my opinion. Any article that is not leaning far left in my personal experience gets ganged up on by social justice warriors to fit the narrative. Wikipedia should be impartial, and egalitarian. All sides should be taken seriously. The edit which has gotten me banned is absurd. I used the dictionary as a reference source. Semitism = policy or predisposition favorable to Jews. Anti = Against Antisemitism is a compound word combining these two already defined words. It clearly means that it is opposition to favoritism of Jews. Furthermore in the older version I removed that "Antisemitism" is racism. Jewish is a religion, and not a race so at most it could be a prejudice, and not racism. Islamophobia is not racist, it is prejudice. There is no Islamic race. If a man says "women are stupid, and are good for nothing but sex and cooking." He is not in fact being racist, because female is not a race either. He is being prejudice or sexist. Furthermore I find it tiresome that when I make a reference that includes anything that is right wing news, or right leaning the source gets called discredited because it is not left leaning. I have been unfairly banned, and ganged up on by social justice warriors. I stop when there are edit wars after like 2 or 3 reverts. I include sources. If you care about freedom of speech, and intellectual diversity you will urban me. There needs to be a balance on Wikipedia and as I see it things are way too far left. I anger the liberals by telling them the truth. They anger me by telling everyone lies, and double speak. Things are getting too Orwellian and it is a time for a change.Kellyzzz05 (talk) 17:21, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I am declining your block appeal. Your editing behavior shows a strong tendency toward tendentious editing and attacking other editors. Your request for an unblock shows that your are not here to contribute to the encyclopedia, but rather to wage ideological battles. Neutrality^talk 18:36, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Poor Kellyzzz05. The whole world is wrong about the meaning of the word antisemitism—a word whose only meaning is Jew-hatred—and he alone has grokked that it means something else. And while most international bodies recognize antisemitism as a form of racism, he alone sees that it's not. WP:Righting Great Wrongs — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:34, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

There is clearly no point in arguing with him. I've never run across anyone making his argument who wasn't a racist. And the block wasn't just for that edit, which was pathetically wrong, it was for a pattern of editing. Nice to see the editor confirming my judgment. Doug Weller talk 17:52, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Kellyzzz05 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I shall take the time to make an individual response to all 3 of those who have responded respectfully, and with candor. Also please address me as "She or her", and not "He or him" as I clearly have a female name, and for your own sake I do not wish for you to commit the sin of a Microaggression, as I know that this is a faux pas in your progressive narrative. Thanks

Malik Shabazz, The man who you named your profile here after is a black separatist, and a member of the hate group known as New Black Panther Party The Anti-Defamation League, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights consider the New Black Panthers to be a hate group. I have personally with my own two eyes seen videos of Malik Shabazz calling to kill white people. I find your name offensive.

Explain to me why is it that this you should be allowed to have such a controversial, and inflammatory user name on this site? It seems as though nobody bats an eye. I feel nobody cares because he is a black racist... If someone else were to use a user name such as David Duke, or David Irving would they be granted such blatant impunity?

I have some questions that I want you to answer for me for real Malik. Do you consider yourself racist at all? Yes or No, and why? Do you feel that these Administrators should force a name change upon you so that you have a more neutral name?

On to the next fellow...

Doug Weller.

"There is clearly no point in arguing with him. I've never run across anyone making his argument who wasn't a racist. And the block wasn't just for that edit, which was pathetically wrong, it was for a pattern of editing. Nice to see the editor confirming my judgment."

Clearly you are being close minded. Calling a conversation where two people do not have the same exact thoughts an argument. If I said "I like chocolate ice cream best." and you said "I like strawberry ice cream best" in response is that an argument? Of course not, different opinions are not arguments. Resorting to calling racism is a modern liberal tactic similar to the Salem witch trials. It's a losing tactic that anyone with common sense can clearly see. You have already made a predetermined judgment, and I doubt you have the independent thinking capabilities or intestinal fortitude to change that prejudice, and free yourself to think outside of the box.

If I simply say "I'm racist" then I'm in the wrong, and if I say that "I'm not racist" you will say something along the lines of "Nobody admits that they are racist." A theoretical win win situation for you where I have no real way to answer without being called a liar or racist, and you have placed me into a Catch-22 (logic) situation.

Since I have called out Malik on his own racist tendencies I will answer honestly about weather or not I am a racist, and my opinion on that matter. I will be Frank, and say that I like most people have an In-group favoritism on occasion, but this is not exclusive to race. I try to be impartial. More simply put, I would feel more comfortable in a group of people who I share much in common, than little in common. I believe that the best person, regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation should always get the job, and oppose affirmative action because that is racist from my perspective. I believe that some races, and cultures excel in certain areas of expertise on the average over others. Similar to Gender Roles, but for Race instead. I will elaborate, and explain my thoughts more clearly:

I could argue that blacks on average are greater than Asians at athleticism. (Take a look at professional sports, whole lot of black people) There are exceptions like Bruce Lee, whose movies I love, and shattered that mold. Inversely I could say that Asians on average are superior in cognitive abilities(See standardized test scores based on ethnicity), but that does not mean that people like Neil deGrasse Tyson are incapable of being a well spoken genius, he clearly is one. I have learned much from him. These are what I would call "race roles". Perhaps more colloquially and less eloquently known as something along the lines of ethnic stereotypes. The same is also true for differences in gender roles. Typically one would think that a female is better at babysitting than a male, and that a man is better at being a mechanic than a woman. Beloved fathers, and male babysitters exist, along with masterful female mechanics. However this is not the norm.

There are different levels of racism. It is not simple "racist" or "not racist"

Level 1 - Internalized Racism - racism that you do not see but exists within yourself. This is often seen as self loathing. For instance, a white person notices that often times black people are great dancers and so they secretly wish to be black for this reason, or an Asian person's car breaks down, and realizes that Germans are often great mechanics and they wish that they were German for this reason.

Level 2 - Interpersonal Racism - It’s internalized racism, but then speaking out loud (or sadly even acting upon it). Dylann Roof shooting up a black church is an example of this. These black lives matter activists (domestic terrorists in my opinion) chanting "What do we want? DEAD COPS, when do we want it? NOW" are another example of interpersonal racism hopefully none of them will act out on this irrational rage that the media fire has lit beneath them with it's propaganda. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqQXmnMr_w8 (if black lives truly mattered to them, why don't we see them doing activities to build up black communities, reduce crime, and increase peaceful prosperity. You won't see them protesting when a black gang member does a drive by shooting, and kills a little baby black girl... You will see no attempt of them to liberate the 8,000,000 people who live in slavery today in Africa. I would be on board with black lives matters if it's own members truly were.)

Level 3 - Institutionalized Racism - This occurs within institutions and systems of power. For example blacks disproportionately put into prison, and affirmative action, the savage hypocrisy of hate crime legislation. (I feel that a person should do the same time for the same crime regardless of the race of the victim, or perpetrator otherwise that is a form of racism.)

Level 4 - Structural Racism - This occurs among Institutions and society. Examples: The war on drugs, The war on poverty, real estate redlining and block-busting, gentrification, white flight, the war on terror,and so on.

Of the four defined levels of racism I am completely disqualified from levels 3, and 4. I'm not in some fantastical position of great power so I don't have the power to do anything to fix these wrongs.

That leaves levels 1, and 2.

Level 1: I guess I wish I were a little better at being a dancer, but this does not make me desire to be black in any way. Although to be fair I wish I had the ability to talk on issues of race without being accused of being a racist which seems to be a black privilege nowadays.

Level 2: I have no plans on killing anyone over their race. Nor do i plan on attacking anyone based on their race verbally or physically.

And finally no good racism rant can be concluded without addressing the elephant that's always in the room when this topic comes up. I shall broach the topic of the word "Nigger", or as the politically correct police say "The-N-word". From my perspective the word "N-word" is more offensive than the word "Nigger". The "N-word" represents censorship. Where as "Nigger" is an expression of anger. I feel that Niggers exist in all races. You can be white, black, brown, red, or yellow and be a nigger. This is a word that needs to lose it's tabu status so in that it can also lose it's strength. That is the only way it will die. I grew up in a house with a racist abusive "big government loving" libtard step father from age 5 to 18. He would call me "Two year old baby retarded nigger" frequently cursing at me like a drunken sailor. He was a prison warden, I bet the inmates got it worse, they were grown men, and I was a child. He always brought home that prison mentality. I despise that man for being a tyrannical racist parental figure. Not many teenagers get handcuffed, and physically assaulted as I did growing up. I take pity on you for viewing me of all people as a racist. You do not know me, or my struggle, the things I have been through. The things I know that few people ever will. I have lived through plenty of racism myself being multiracial and having that type racist parental figure. My childhood was that of a prison environment. You do not know me, and your snap judgment is offensive, but I will be the bigger person and forgive you for your transgressions against me.

Finally I come to neutrality.

"I am declining your block appeal. Your editing behavior shows a strong tendency toward tendentious editing and attacking other editors. Your request for an unblock shows that your are not here to contribute to the encyclopedia, but rather to wage ideological battles."

Citation needed on me attacking other users. I am gonna need to see your sources of me threatening people. I do not believe I did that, and I feel this is a blatant lie.

I will personally decline to further request ban appeals if you can do the following thing for me: Give me just 5 examples of people being banned permanently over pushing left wing rhetoric in similar manner as I have been accused of doing with the right. I doubt you will find 1.

As for my abilities to contribute to an encyclopedia... There are some hard truth's that some people just don't want to hear yet. This is not trolling, it's an attempt to enlighten people to think outside of their narrow narrative.

And finally "Ideological battles" should be encouraged if done so in a respectful manner, and is an absurd reason for a ban. If not for ideological battles we would not be where we are today. Some good examples are: Videotape format war, and The War of CurrentsWe are not machines, we are human beings. Without these and other ideological battles we would still be living in caves. That is how progress is made! Different people have different belief systems, and perceive events in history and today differently. If Wikipedia existed in the 1950s then an article about how homosexuality is a form of mental illness would be a completely valid point of view. If this were the 1950s you would have to be banning those who did not conform to the social norms of the time. If this were the early 1800s you would have to be banning those like myself who think blacks should be treated equal as the Three-Fifths Compromise was the establishment at the time.

Kellyzzz05 (talk) 22:11, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I'm declining your unblock request as per the reason given in your last one. Moreover, since you are using your talk pages to call other users racists, I'm revoking your talk page access. Appeal may be made to WP:UTRS. BethNaught (talk) 22:23, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.