User talk: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.

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)

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. -- Dane 2007  talk 01:00, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

September 2016
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; 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: 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)
 * 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.

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. ⁓ Hello  71  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:. 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)

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)