User talk:RuthieK/Archive 1

Conceptual art
See User talk:75.34.10.171. -- Tyrenius 10:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC) NoRuthieK 15:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Edits to Conceptual Art
Ms. RuthieK, when deleting my insertion refer to me accurately; otherwise your argument lacks viability. Avantguarde 01:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC) She is unnotable, I implied it was a vanity entry. It was humour. RuthieK 15:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * She is quite notable and there is no "humour" in making false accusations and disparaging remarks, which seems to be your habit.

Unreferenced stuff
Please don't re-add unreferenced stuff into articles. This voulates wikipedia policies. Please also don't put false edit summaries, like you did in -phob- article. `'mikka (t) 20:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC) I didn't. You decided their should be your own rules for the page, I didn't agree. You were reverting me and everyone else.RuthieK 15:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Unreferenced stuff: Johnny Vaughan
You (re-)added:


 * He may not be as bald as he seems, but decided to deal with intractable hair loss by having a preemptive 'no. 1', giving himself at least the illusion of follicle control.

Can you please cite a reputable reference for this, or I'll delete it again. Richard W.M. Jones 14:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC) Read the page carefully. The source was his words in Best of the Worst.RuthieK 15:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Farabi
There is a dispute over weather or not Farabi was Turkic or Persian. But he certainly wasn't Arab. --Mardavich 13:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC) Read what it says at the top of the article about The Arab World RuthieK 15:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but Farabi is neither Arab nor has any connection to the Arab world. He simply doesn't belong on that list. --Mardavich 14:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Read what it says at the top of the article about The Arab World RuthieK 15:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

3RR warning
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.--Mardavich 14:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC) I added a name according to the rules the page and you decided you wanted a racially pure Arab page (although Arab itself is an entirely mongrel identity) and kept reverting me, get your facts right RuthieK 15:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Blanking your own talk page
Please do not blank your own talk page as you have done at least twice. Answer any points made instead. Richard W.M. Jones 10:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC) Get a life. Get a shave. ;0) RuthieK 15:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Your attacks on other editors
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. yandman 15:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC) Get a life. Why does Wikipedia attract such petty minded elements? Relax. Stay cool. Exactly. RuthieK 15:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

List of Arab scientists and scholars
Hello. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Otherwise, people might consider your edits to be vandalism. Thank you. Hi, I noticed that you quite often reverting the article against an apparent consensus of the other editors. It is not the right way to do things, try to persuade your opponents that you are right, or listen to their arguments, maybe they are not that wrong after all or ask for the third opinion on the matter. Happy editing abakharev 10:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * you will see that I do justify my changes and discuss them - if you look! Look ! RuthieK 10:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you're missing the point. You have to reach consensus before making controversial edits. Justifying your edits is not reaching consensus. yandman  10:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * A group of people cannot hijack the list and say it is for a purpose different from what it describes itself as. I haven't changed the list. There is a group of people determined to use the list to push a definition of arab which is irreleant to the list. People have cultural yearnings (there should be a word for linguistic-fascists to match racial-fascist) - they shouldn't expect everyone to give way when they are projected on to the medieval period RuthieK 10:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Your 3RR report
I'm not going to do any more with your malformed report; hopefully some other admin will sort you out. But please note: the 4 reverts have to be within a 24h period. And you need to supply the URL for the diff William M. Connolley 21:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Page blanking, yet again
Welcome back from your block. Please do not blank your talk page (3rd time and counting). Richard W.M. Jones 22:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Your actions
Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by administrators or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. Labelling other users as "prigs..small minded nerds" [] and "petty minded" is not very civil. Neither is attacking admins for not blocking people who have done nothing wrong. [] yandman  09:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I take this as an embarrassed admission of being shown to be foolish. I think if people tell me I can't remove comments from a talk page (when I can!) and threaten blocking ("3rd time and counting!") - then that is disruption. The user I wanted blocked was a pushing a racist agenda (not polluting certain writers with the taint of being arab) and repeatedly vandalising legitimate additions to pages (attend to the facts!) Please address pertinent issues when brought up instead of shifting your unresearched ground. "Petty minded" sums it all up perfectly. (and prig and petty minded and small minded nerds are well within the limits of robust debate in any forum valuing freedom of speech e.g. the Australian parliament) RuthieK 09:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Ruthie, you can't remove warnings from your talk page. Simple as that. And you did. Therefore other editors can warn you that if you don't stop, you will be blocked. It's not a threat, it's a fact. yandman  13:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Except there was no warning!! There were only messages!! And an attempt is being made to bully me and protect RWNM (who issued threats without foundation). Substantive issues are never addressed. It is abusive and corrupt and wrong.RuthieK 13:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * [], [], []. All of which you blanked. yandman  13:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The threat came before that! Look at the first instance after his first message. (And note: all my changes were entirely justified - no vandalism or anything wrong at all. My justified changes were reverted by others who don't like "native-arab speakers" being associated in the same article with "non-native arab speakers".) He removed referenced stuff from the Johnny Vaughan article and claimed it was unsourced. I reverted (it quoted JV on national TV). Then I edited again. Was I being warned? Some people seem to roam around considering everything they write, unjustifed or not, to be a 'warning'. So what we have are:

1. A fictional non-warning from RNTH 2. Warning from someone who has a quasi-racist agends on arabs/persian/turks 3. Your warnings built on fictional warning #1. Why should I stick it when other people should? RuthieK 13:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Looking at your contributions, one sees that you made the same changes to the same article 4 times in one day. You then vented your frustration at being reverted by the consensus of editors by vandalising the article. And in your edit summaries, you branded other editors as racist. How is this civil? yandman  13:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * that is Grotesque. Look at the facts! Is being an adminstrator about missing what is before your eyes? There is no consensus of editors on that page. Read the talk page to see how anyone who folows what the page describes itself as being is reverted by a small cabal acting in concert. I don't see how their actions are not vandalism. I wasn't frustrated. I was determined not to be bullied by people with a racial agenda. They do not want Al-farabi - who made major contributions to science in the arab world to be on a list which describes itself (1st paragraph!) as being for that purpose. It is clear that they can't bear anyone born into a persian or turkic background to appear anywhere near the word arab/arabic (even though the cultural world of the middle ages was conducted in arabic) Blind formalism supporting ill-concealed racism and nationalism. Great one wikipedia And you still haven't addressed the point about RKHM pestering people without reason!  RuthieK 14:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

For your continued racist attacks, you have now been blocked for 48 hours. --InShaneee 17:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

User Mardavic did not violate 3RR

 * Revision as of 14:40, 5 October 2006 - R adds section
 * Revision as of 14:41, 5 October 2006 - M rvt 1
 * Revision as of 14:52, 5 October 2006 - R rvt 1
 * Revision as of 15:03, 5 October 2006 - M rvt 2
 * Revision as of 15:05, 5 October 2006 - R rvt 2
 * Revision as of 15:10, 5 October 2006 - M rvt 3
 * Revision as of 15:15, 5 October 2006 - R rvt 3
 * Revision as of 17:42, 5 October 2006 - User:Ali doostzadeh rvt (4)

And this edit summary WAS a personal attack. The links above show how to provid diffs, if you've any questions let me know. Mark83 21:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry
Sorry I thought I was correct. Probably you are. 62.64.207.219 13:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)