Malik047

Welcome...

Hello, Malik047, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! SU Linguist (talk) 14:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Mildred Jeter and Richard Loving.jpg

Hello. Thank you for your note. The issue, as I understand it, isn't whether the image is "significant", but whether its use in Interracial marriage satisfies Wikipedia's rules concerning the use of non-"free" media. While the Lovings were very important figures in American history with respect to interracial marriage, I'm not sure that their picture "significantly increases readers' understanding of the topic" of interracial marriage, and that's the relevant standard. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

A little clique controls the Technocracy articles to very very bad effect

The same group of scum bag tandem editors that have controlled and now want to misrepresent any and all articles connected with Technocracy issues ... even to the point of trying to delete the article now. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Johnfos#The_Signpost:_17_October_2011 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Epipelagic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Beagel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lawrencekhoo

Mostly they collude to give bad information.

The same group of tandem editors from several years ago still try and control this article. They want to eliminate an article about one of the major social movements ... the group that started it. Wikipedia is known for special interest control and buddy editing. Its a pity and the reason a serious article on an important American group is being tried to be done away with by tandem editors that obviously object for some reason to the content. The past clearly shows the same team of tandem editors here. Beagle and Johnphos are tandem editors as is Lawrencekhoo and Epipelagic... One of the most significant groups in American history and they want to get rid of the article. Its pathetic and shows the weakness of en. Wikipedia. Lawrencekhoo is a mainstream economist who ax grinds economic articles Google his name for his economic 'beliefs' Gino — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.67.106.113 (talk) 11:16, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Notice of Biographies of living persons noticeboard discussion

Hello, Malik047. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Michael Fassbender. Thank you. Favonian (talk) 19:59, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Olivier Martinez and Halle Berry.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Olivier Martinez and Halle Berry.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:58, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Tone it down

Just a heads-up, screaming right-wing and white supremacy about other editors on here will in all probablity get you indef blocked. WP:NPA should help you a bit. Remember to log in when you edit. Also pushing a view on articles, like you have done on McCann, will also likely lead to a block. Take these as friendly advice more than a warning, but understand after this point you will not have the excuse of not knowing about these things. If you have any questions add here I have added your page on my watchlist. Murry1975 (talk) 13:36, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Please refrain from making attempts at harrassment, and specifically implied threats of wikihounding, when approaching fellow Wikipedia editors. The latter in particular is considered a very serious matter by Wikipedia guidelines. As a reminder, the ongoing attempts to remove sourced content from, or add unsourced slander to, the Michael Fassbender article are not a trivial issue: They are deemed vandalism and have led to administrator-led lockdowns of this article in the past. If there are reasonable grounds to assume this behavior has its origins with far-right sentiment, then this will be mentioned as well as discussed where appropriate. Lastly, you may find that editors who boast a record of opting to use the talk page to settle disputes or to achieve consensus are difficult to effectively label as "pushing a view" on articles, as such editors inherently do not rely on unilateral actions. Malik047 (talk) 09:39, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Current consensus is to not make reference to MWWS on the McCann article. Please get new consensus before adding it. And please assume good faith and do not make accusations against other editors who are mainly attempting to keep the tone of the discussion civil and give good advice. Thank you. Harry the Dog WOOF 10:46, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I will gladly refer you to the talk page of the Madelleine McCann article. Also, please re-examine the vandalism guidelines, and verify for yourself how the disputed edits on the Michael Fassbender article were deemed to be disruptive in nature on each occassion. If you are in need of additional information on this specific topic, then you can always contact Favonian, the administrator who placed the Michael Fassbender article under protection for us at the time. Best regards. Malik047 (talk) 01:45, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Rollo Please do not revert referenced edits to this page by an historian attempting a clean-up and up-date. Genie (talk) 16:28, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Malik047. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)