Unwarranted remarks 
hello.  First of all, I'm very well aware of "3RR", and secondly, you should be aware that I did NOT reach "3RR" or violate anything.  Thirdly, it would be nice (for consistency's sake, but since I see favoritism and politics at work here) that you would give that same lecture to Malik.  Since he was reverting like crazy and getting close to uh "3RR".  Of course you didn't, per your bias in favor of him, for some reason (a problem on Wikipedia that happens with Admins and other users...), and sided with his nonsense that somehow "ICGC" was somehow "not notable".  Never mind that they've been all over tv talk shows for years, guests on interviews, and in the radio, and even in the news.  Never mind that they've been around for decades.  And have internet sites for years.  You'll knee-jerkly take Malik's side on this, because after all, he's "Malik Shabaz".  A bully on Wikipedia who is revert happy, and for some reason you favor.  I do NOT appreciate your remarks to me on his talk page.   I did not violate anything. NOTHING.  But Malik was arguably violating "I don't like" and "no own".  You'll deny that, because after all, he's Malik.  And for whatever reason, whatever he does or says, you (admin or not), seem to knee-jerkly side with.  So now that Malik has obvious back-up for his bullying and ownership violations (back-up from an imperfect Admin who is arguably a bully too doesn't bode well for me, does it) it's hard for me to do anything.  Yes, I'm angry.  Your remarks were obtuse and unnecessary.  I violated nothing.  Malik seems to think he owns a bunch of articles, as is seen from his history and pattern.  Yet you wink at it, or deny that, because, well, he's "Malik".  Good day.   

Toxicity label: other