User talk:Ruthfulbarbarity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia from SqueakBox! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and becoming a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name 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 someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome, SqueakBox 03:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank You

For the warm welcome, and words of advice/practical tips.

I've actually used this website for years, and have made some contributions to it, before deciding to finally register, in the past.

Ruthfulbarbarity 06:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No Personal Attacks

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 admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. --Kuzaar-T-C- 18:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal Attacks

I don't have a problem refraining from what you describe as "personal attacks," but I would feel more comfortable in the knowledge that there were other admins who are monitoring the behavior of that user, who-from all appearances-is simply here to vandalize the PW article, cause conflict on the talk page dealing with that article, and serve as an impediment to improving the discussion surrounding Protes

t Warrior.

Granted, those might all be construed as "personal attacks" under this policy, so I won't repeat them. However, I don't think they are inaccurate, especially if you check that user's history of "contributions."

Ruthfulbarbarity 20:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I can understand how you feel, but as always, you have to remember that the legitimate editors must hold themselves to a higher standard than those who are here to compromise the integrity of the project. :) --Kuzaar-T-C- 01:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I know.
It's just slightly annoying having to deal with the same disgruntled person, and the same baseless, churlish complaints, who follows you to multiple websites.
It's as if the Black Israelites, instead of confining their gibberish to a small quadrant of Times Square, decided to accost people as they moved around midtown Mahattan.
In any case, I understand what you're trying to accomplish, and appreciate the advice.

Ruthfulbarbarity 02:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for using userboxes I made.

I created the Anti-ACLU and Anti-UN userboxes. It's nice to see them being used somewhere besides my page.  :-) Lawyer2b 03:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow.

Good job.

In any case, you're welcome.

Now I just have to see if I can align them properly.

The page is a bit of a mess as it is.

Ruthfulbarbarity 04:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External links

Please do not add commercial links or links to your own private websites to Wikipedia, as you did in Rosario Dawson. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. You are, however, encouraged to add content instead of links. See the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. --Yamla 15:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not my website, and-to the best of my knowledge-not a commercial site either.

The only reason I included a fan site is because it had more material about the subject-relatively speaking-than other sites I had come across in my admittedly brief Web search related to her career.

Ruthfulbarbarity 00:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reliable sources

Hello. I have noticed that you have recently added a number of external links to the Azmi Bishara article that do not appear to have been written by or directly about the subject. Additionally, most of the articles appeared to be tendentious or polemic sources, and as such are not appropriate to link to externally. See WP:EL for external linking guidelines. I have reverted to an older version in the meantime and suggest that if you want any of these to be included, you screen for neutral point of view in the links and ensure that they conform to the EL guidelines above. --Kuzaar-T-C- 18:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

How is the International Committee For The Defense of Azmi Bishara not a tendentious/polemic source?

And if it is, why didn't you remove that link as well, or at least add one that criticized the people coming to his defense?

Bishara has been accused, credibly, of engaging in acts that constitute treason, has met with officials from countries that are in a state of war with Israel, and has defended the actions of organizations that murder innocent Israeli citizens, and attack members of the Israeli military.

There are even allegations that he is acting as an agent of foreign powers, e.g. his trips to Syria, where he has denounced the Jewish State, even though he serves as a member of the Knesset with political immunity for any seditious remarks.

Don't you think it's odd that there's almost no critical material about such a controversial figure included in that article?

Ruthfulbarbarity 19:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I have no issue with critical material being added. My problem is with external links being added that are not up to guidelines. I'm certain you can find a newspaper with a website that has openly criticized him. Blogs have never been and will never be appropriate external links for public figures unless those figures are from the blog community. If there are allegations, as you said, that have come from a reliable source as described in WP:RS, then I can only encourage you to add them. However, I would like to remind you that it is never appropriate for Wikipedia to advocate one side or another in a debate, that its duty is to frame the debate as a whole, and finally that undue weight should not be given to a position held by a minority. All of these rules are outlined at Wikipedia's page on neutral point of view. You seem to have an interest in several politically controversial topics, so I would be encouraged if you went through them. --Kuzaar-T-C- 14:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
What do you mean by a "minority?"
Are you implying that a majority of the Knesset is in favor of obliterating the Jewish State?
Since most members are not Arabs, I don't see how you could make that assertion.
Or are you stating that a majority of Israeli Arabs are in favor of Israel's extermination?
I don't see why they are entitled to have their point of view represented, but the other three-quarters of the Israeli population is not.

Ruthfulbarbarity 19:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd also like to know why you are requesting that I beg off politically controversial subjects, especially when there are so many others-of a distinctly different bent-who are not able to refrain from inserting their opinions into the body of articles.
I have no intention of doing so, although I'll respect your request not to post any links to blogs in the future.

Ruthfulbarbarity 19:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I would encourage you to keep working the politically controversial subjects. You have a right to and honestly just because he encourages you not to does not mean anything. --Getaway 01:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
What I say is irrelevant, and what you say is irrelevant. What matters is the NPOV guidelines, which are NOT optional and apply to all users. Editing articles in which you have a personal interest is discouraged by guidelines, according to community consensus, not just me. The fact that I encourage this user to take one particular action means less than the fact that consensus does the same. So no, while this user has a right to edit whatever, that does not mean that my opinion on the matter is any less valid than yours, Getaway. --Kuzaar-T-C- 13:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
As I pointed out on your talk page, you should reframe from discouraging new editors to stop that do not agree with you. NO WHERE do I encourage this new editor or any new editor to break the Wikipedia rules, but I DO encourage them to just keep on editing, despite your attempts to make them stop. Also, I never, ever stated that my opinion is worth more than yours. Where do you get that?? Please point that out to me. I would like to see it. Ruthful, keep on keeping on and don't let Kuzaar, the self-appointed czar of Wikipedia, discourage you from editing. --Getaway 14:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
As per my response on the page, I am by no means telling Ruthful to stop editing. By the same logic as used on the guideline page, WP:BAI, I am saying that editing articles regarding political subjects in which you have a strong interest in makes it very easy to make edits which might be construed as POV or adding commentary. By saying "Disregard what Kuzaar says, it doesn't matter", you imply that the community consensus policies that I advocate are not applicable to the situation and can be disregarded. This is not correct- consensus is a vital cornerstone as to determining appropriate conduct in the Wikipedia project and should not be disregarded. --Kuzaar-T-C- 14:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
No. I did not "imply" that. You just took it that way. --Getaway 15:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Also, for all of this noise about "blogs" there were only a few links that I posted which would fall under that rubric.
I can't go back and check-since you deleted them-but I do remember at least two of them specifically, which were not weblogs.
One being a weekly column from Al-Ahram-the single largest English-language daily in Egypt-and the other from the Middle East Forum, one of the most respected monitors of Arabic media and political trends in the country.

Ruthfulbarbarity 19:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

That does not change the fact that all but one or two of the external links were inappropriate under the WP:EL guidelines in that they serve only to expound a specific point of view, contain unverified original research or opinion, and of course there's the prohibition of blogs, which made up no fewer than half of the links that you did add. Additionally, the reason I cautioned you against editing controversial articles is that first, it appears that you have a personal interest or opinion on the subject (which is similarly cautioned against in some of Wikipedia's NPOV guidelines), and second, that because of the first reason, it is very easy to slip into adding opinion and commentary to the article, which is a fairly serious risk. Because of your response and your insistence that it was appropriate to add those links to the article, I can only surmise that you are still not familiar with the external linking/NPOV guidelines. Becoming familiar with them will help you to make significant contributions to the project without requiring so much review. Thank you, and happy editing, --Kuzaar-T-C- 15:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:Civil

Hey Ruthful,

You've done some good editing, but you should be careful about saying things like "At least not by anyone with an ounce of credibility or intellectual honesty." That could be construed as incivil discourse, and may be a borderline personal attack. In general, I find it most productive in these heated debates to stick to the arguments, as the other party probably won't become more willing to compromise once they are referred to that way, even if you think that is an accurate description. At the end of the day, you just want to get your point across, no? If you have any questions about this or any other issue on Wikipedia, feel free to ask me. Happy editing, TewfikTalk 03:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:NBGPWS edits on Protest Warrior

I believe User:NBGPWS's edits to be in violation of at least three policies in the last two days, namely, WP:AGF, WP:3RR, and WP:Civility. I am working very hard to treat him firmly but respectfully so as to communicate the seriousness with which his actions are viewed. I would like to ask you to do the same. Please do not respond to him with incivility or in any other way that violates policy. That way, if he continues it will be much easier to have him banned from editing that article. Thank you. Lawyer2b 17:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem doing that.
In fact, engaging him constructively seems to be a lost cause, so I'll just ignore the dispute for the time being.

Ruthfulbarbarity 19:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

A commendable attitude. I've made it my cause to see that policies are enforced to protect the neutrality of articles so I plan to either persuade him to stop or document his edits and bring them to an administrator's attention. It would be nice to be able to discuss things privately via email. On the left hand side of everyone's user page is a link to send an email through wikipedia but you have to configure it through your preferences. If you want to correspond via email send me one using that link on my userpage. By the way, your correct usage of the word "pore" in the talk page was most impressive. Lawyer2b 21:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
That sounds like a wise strategy for the time being.
I just enabled my e-mail, so you should be able to send me a message.
Ruthfulbarbarity 21:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


Just saw your plea over at Lawyer2b. I am in a fierce and heated debate with a conservative POV warrior who uses wikipolicy as a weapon right now. I have debated some of the fiercest POV warriors on wikipedia and reached a consensus. I would first suggest the mediation cabal. Not knowing your situation myself, I won't give you any advice beyond this. If you need any help, let me know. I often archive my comments, even a day after I recieve them, after responding to them (you have to respond to them, otherwise another user can file a grievance, see: Wikipedia:Talk_pages#Etiquette). You can't delete warning messages, but you can delete everything else (after you respond). I question whether this user's warning messages are official messages, to be on the safe side, I would archive them, and not delete them--out of sight out of mind right? See my box to see how I handle those who don't know wikipolicy on my talk page, and how I archive my messages. User talk:Travb

Signed: Travb (talk) 23:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestions.
I've tried to refrain from responding to the instigation of NBG-having encountered him in other venues I've never found it to be a pleasant nor productive experience-but I suppose deleting those templates-even if I construed them to be vandalism-was the wrong approach.
I'll see what mediation is possible in this situation.

Ruthfulbarbarity 22:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] hey, buddy.

we just agreed on something. Not to be mean or anything, but could you just let sleeping dogs lie? dposse 02:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that.
It would be pointless to edit my comments now.
In any case, I'm glad that this (tangential) issue has to be put to rest.

Ruthfulbarbarity 02:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully put to rest. Just try not to spark the argument up again when we have reached an agreement, ok? dposse 02:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vote on renaming title

In the Israel-Lebanon conflict page we are having a vote on renaming the title from Israel-Lebanon conflict to Israel-Lebanon War. Hope you vote for Israel-Lebanon War :)

Well, it doesn't really matter-as far as I'm concerned-since there are much more egregious problems with the article in question.
That being said, I won't object to any name change.

Ruthfulbarbarity 19:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Liberty Post

Hello, I have recently listed the article Liberty Post for deletion. You can participate in the discussion here.

Thank you for notifying me that you have placed an afd tag on one of my articles, although I would have appreciated it if you had brought your objection to my attention on the talk page prior to making such a rash judgment.

Ruthfulbarbarity 23:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Notability (web)

I thought you might want to become familiar with the notability requirements of websites to be included in Wikipedia.

Criteria for web content
Web specific-content[1] is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:

  1. The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.
    • This criterion excludes:
      • Media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site.[2]
      • Trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report the internet address, the times at which such content is updated or made available, a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of internet addresses and site or content descriptions in internet directories or online stores.
    • This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations.[3]
  2. The website or content has won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation.[4]
  3. The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster.[5]

The article itself must provide proof that its subject meets one of these criteria via inlined links or a "Reference" or "External link" section. Even if an entire website meets the notability criteria, its components (forums, articles, sections) are not necessarily notable and deserving of their own separate article.

[edit] Final Warning

This is the only warning you will receive. Your recent vandalism will not be tolerated. The next time you vandalize a page, you will maybe be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Final Warning

NBGPWS 10:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

LOL.
Stop pretending to be someone.
I'm going to be very blunt here.
Neocon, cut the crap.
You're going to be blocked if you keep this up, which-knowing your personality-you probably will.
Why not quit while you're behind?

Ruthfulbarbarity 11:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another warning to RB

WARNING: you are acting in an uncivil manner. Remain civil and don't resort to making personal attacks or instigate edit wars. I will be reporting your continuing insults and personal attacks. You have been admonished for your personal attacks by Wiki admins on mulitiple occasions. Expect another warning. Stop now.

NBGPWS 18:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Report all you want, you raving lunatic.
Look, stop this crap.
Stop the harassing messages, stop fiddling with the Protest Warrior articles.
You've already attracted the unwelcome attention of several other editors here, so I suggest you stop making a nuisance of yourself, or leave Wikipedia altogether.

Ruthfulbarbarity 22:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


Please do not remove legitimate warnings from your talk page or replace them with offensive content. Removing or maliciously altering warnings from your talk page will not remove them from the page history. You're welcome to archive your talk page, but be sure to provide a link to any deleted legitimate comments. If you continue to remove or vandalize legitimate warnings from your talk page, you will lose your privilege of editing your talk page. Thanks. -- ~PinkDeoxys~ 23:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The comments are not legitimate.
They were templates used by a recurring troll who has repeatedly vandalized the Protest Warrior talk page-and the article connected to it-and who has been using this website as a platform to launch his invective against an organization against which he bears some inexplicable grievance.
He has spammed those pages with irrelevant, tendentious links, and has viscerally attacked everyone trying to make a positive contribution to the Protest Warrior article.
If you search his history of "contributions" you'll realize that he does not have any valid complaints.

Ruthfulbarbarity 23:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

WARNING: you are acting in an uncivil manner. Please remember to remain civil at all times, and don't resort to making personal attacks. Thanks for your cooperation.
NBGPWS 05:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Warning on deletions

WARNING: Please do not remove legitimate messages from your talk page. Talk pages exist as a record of legitimate communication, and in any case, comments are available through the page history. You're welcome to archive your talk page, but be sure to provide a link to any deleted legitimate comments. Thanks for your coooperation!

NBGPWS 05:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Warning to you

STOP IT!

Immediately.

I have not engaged you in over a day, and do not plan on communicating with you in any way, shape, or form in the future. The next time you place anything on my talk page I will be referring your actions to administrative authorities. I suggest that you cease and desist immediately. Ruthfulbarbarity 11:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Try reporting him to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism in order to resolve the dispute. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 20:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I refer to your comments of 14 August. I will continue to note your incivil behavior whenever and wherever you attack me - on my page OR yours. :NBGPWS 11:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism won't work, a user can post warning messages on another user's wikipage, that is not vandalism. I would suggest getting an Advocate from the Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates. Travb (talk) 23:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. I appreciate the advice, and will look into it. --Ruthfulbarbarity 00:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
We'd hate for you to get discouraged from editing wikipedia, just because of some asshole. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 22:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Just so you know unwarranted warning tags are in fact vandalism, if you really feel they are being posted as vandalism they report it as such. Or you can post it at the general admin alert board so you can better explain your position. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 00:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Zer0faults knows wikipolicy better than anyone I have ever met on wikipedia. I would bet that he is right. My mistake. Travb (talk) 01:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, I have saved this dif since its a wonderful compliment and shows you realize how knowledgable of Wiki policy I am. I put a lot of work into learning the rules before I participate. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 09:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
You, sir, are a role model in that regard.  :-) Lawyer2b 22:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Userboxes etc.

I read all your userboxes (well, ok, not all of them) and checked out some of your contribs and you seem like a really good guy. I hope you don't mind if I borrow a few of those boxes. I'm definitely with you on the inclusion of "stance" userboxes. Too bad about your vandal/troll problem; hope you get that sorted out. It's important to remember: if you are being targeted, it probably means you are being effective. Best wishes, TheKaplan 05:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I honestly don't blame you.
I would imagine that plowing through 200+ userboxes would be a bit of a chore.
In any case, they're not my userboxes so much as userboxes that I transcribed from the standard gallery, or from other user pages.
I suppose I should have added the "userbox thief" template to the obscene number of boxes already in existence on that page.
Heh.
The exceptions are the federalist, anti-illegals and New York Blood Center boxes.
It's funny, because there is actually an organ donor template, but I haven't found a regular one for blood donors, which you would think would be more prevalent among Wikipedians. .
Anyway, I appreciate the compliments.

Ruthfulbarbarity 05:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This much seems evident.

This user overuses userboxes.




Woodshed 07:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

True.

Ruthfulbarbarity 07:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] KLF

I note that you have begun to revise the KLF article. The first day's contribution is exactly the sort of thing I envisioned when I posted the NPOV notice. Well done so far and I hope that you can complete the task without interference from fanatic partisans ... on either side.

Partisans always want to push their agendas, forgetting that Wikipedia is an on-line encyclopedia, and not a recruiting hand-out. As I said, you are off to a good start with your revision. Good luck. B00P 08:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree.
I just had a look at the PKK (Kurdish Workers' Party) article, which also has a POV template attached to it.
I'm not sure, but I think the article related to the MEK (NCRI) is the same, with partisans from opposite sides trying to muddle what should be a clear, coherent, factual narrative about that group's history and turning the article into one prolonged, digressive edit war.
I'm trying to find more information about this specific Sikh organization, on Global Security, the CFR website, as well as some online resources from a Sikh perspective.

Ruthfulbarbarity 18:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shelley Sekula-Gibbs

I thought you might be interested in this comment that I posted in response to yours:

As a follow-up the above comment. There are fifty city council members (aldermen) on the Chicago City Council and every single one of them have a Wikipedia article about them. Chicago is the third largest city and Houston is the fourth largest city. Also, there is no way all fifty of them should have their own Wikipedia article. Please read some them. For example, I'm sure this person is a good person, but what qualifies this Chicago alderman with a Wikipedia article, other than simply being on the Chicago City Council? See John Pope (alderman). Based upon this article, I respectfully disagree that simply being on a city council gets you in Wikipedia. Sekula-Gibbs would be the first Houston city council member with her own Wikipedia article and there are a couple of others who probably should be covered also, but ALL of the Chicago aldermen?? I don't think so.--Getaway 19:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Interesting point.
I didn't know that about the entries on Chicago aldermen.
It does seem odd that all of them would have an individual article devoted to them, rather than having them merged into one or several larger articles.
The issue I raised earlier in the afd discussion about the NYC Council-which has several prominent members, including former officeholders, who have no article devoted to them-is also worth noting.
My general opinion is that there are a lot of individuals who have Wikipedia articles that shouldn't, and some who quite clearly deserve Wikipedia articles-such as the city councilman/state senator I alluded to-but who don't yet have them.
Personally, I think some editors are much too hasty in recommending deletion for articles that exhibit prima facie cases for inclusion, e.g. the Sekula-Gibbs article.
A random Google search would have demonstrated to the person recommending deletion-on the basis of notability-that Sekula-Gibbs is in fact a moderately notable figure, at the very least.
I think this problem is compounded somewhat by people who either delete out of process, or because they are not as familiar with the subject matter as some other Wikipedia users might be.
For example, someone who follows domestic political developments would most likely be very familiar with a figure like Gibbs-at least within the past few months-whereas someone who is unfamiliar with congressional politics would have no idea who she is, and therefore recommend the deletion of her article based upon his or her own unfamiliarity with the figure in question.
In any case, I appreciate your work.

Ruthfulbarbarity 20:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your refusal to use edit summaries

RB, please explain these edits on the Protest Warrior entry, and why you, unlike others, feel you do not need to inform others of WHY you are making wholesale changes to the article, and using what justifications of WP. The edit summary box is there for a REASON. I am looking into the ramifications of your refusal to use it.

(cur) (last) 23:14, 23 August 2006 Ruthfulbarbarity (Talk | contribs) (→Motivation)(NO SUMMARY)
(cur) (last) 23:12, 23 August 2006 Ruthfulbarbarity (Talk | contribs) (→Methodology)(NO SUMMARY)
(cur) (last) 23:10, 23 August 2006 Ruthfulbarbarity (Talk | contribs) m (→Website)(NO SUMMARY)
(cur) (last) 23:08, 23 August 2006 Ruthfulbarbarity (Talk | contribs) m (→Past operations)(NO SUMMARY)

"Always fill in the summary field. This is considered an important guideline. Even a short summary is better than no summary. An edit summary is even more important if you delete any text; otherwise, people may think you're being sneaky. Also, mentioning one change but not another one can be misleading to someone who finds the other one more important; add "and misc." to cover the other change(s).[1]

NBGPWS 02:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

One of them was putting a verification tag on an unsourced, unverified assertion, i.e. most Protest Warriors disbelieve in the idea of global warming, while the other was removing a statement that was also unverified, re: the assertion that Protest Warriors impersonate participants in gay pride parades in order to discredit them.
The others were minor edits, i.e. grammar, syntax, spelling, etc., IIRC.
I'm pretty sure I declared that they were minor edits before I made them.

Ruthfulbarbarity 03:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NBGPWS

Ruthfulbarbarity, what would you think about filing a Request for Comment about NBGPWS's behavior? Given that he's now reverting typo corrections because the summary wasn't used, I think he's out of control and has gone too far. --Neverborn 04:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree.
It would seem appropriate-in light of his recent behavior-for someone who is an administrator to refer his actions to the proper entities here.
I don't know whether it's a case for arbcom or not, but his behavior has become intolerable.
There's no other way to put it.

Ruthfulbarbarity 05:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Will you gather diffs and that sort of thing? I can help, perhaps. I was thinking an RfC: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Request_comment_on_users --Neverborn 06:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
It seems like a logical next step.
He has been warned by over half a dozen editors-including several administrators-been flagged for possibly having a sock puppet account, and blocked for violating the 3RR.
Yet he still persists in trolling.
I'll see what I can do, although actually sorting his violations chronologically seems like something that other editors might be better suited for.
Lawyer2b did a pretty good job of that in the cabal NeoCons initiated, for some inexplicable reason.

Ruthfulbarbarity 07:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

What was inexplicable? Why I did it or why I put it there? Lawyer2b 17:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC) P.S. Feel free to add to it.
No, I was referring to NBG's obsession with the Protest Warrior website.
Sorry for the confusion.

Ruthfulbarbarity 18:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wiki-marxist garble

This is a request for immediate help from Kmaguir1. If you have time, I'd like you to examine the Bell Hooks article and talk page. It's a scholarly article about a controversial writer, someone who drew the ire of a conservative commentator. They wanted me to go get the quote from her book, and I did that. But now, they're arguing it's not notable. As a follower of Wikipedia, you will know that of all the meaningless academic trivia included on her page, that what they wanted to exclude was really ridiculous: that she says as an opening to her book, Killing Rage, "I am writing this essay sitting beside an anonymous white male that I long to murder". This may in itself be notable, but David Horowitz wrote about it in 100 Dangerous Professors, and it was written about on front page mag, and all the citations are given on the page. I would appreciate your help--I'm contending with some very difficult Marxists who are attached to her work, and think that they're defending the liberal cause, but really, they're just keeping out material that is very easily notable.-Kmaguir1 08:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Greetings. In the interest of disclosure, I'd like to inform you of a conduct RfC on Kmaguir1. It's here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Kmaguir1. If you have time and are so inclined, feel free to provide comments there. Meanwhile, if you go to the bell hooks page, please do join in the discussion. If you read the Talk page and look at my and others' edit histories, you'll see that the picture is not quite as Kmaguir1 paints it. (I have no idea who the Marxists are he's referring to, and I've also edited his text for improvement, and left it in the article, vs. what he's saying here.)
Bottom line: welcome to bell hooks, be aware of the RfC, and feel free to join it. Cheers,--Anthony Krupp 17:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I made a few minor, technical revisions to the section entitled "Cultural Conservative Criticism," and added a link to a critical piece authored by Jamie Glazov.
Other than that, I don't plan on contributing much to the debate over that particular article-although I would suggest that the contention that the only people who view her academic work as racist or controversial are "cultural conservatives" is misleading, to say the least-or adding/subtracting from its overall content.
It does have an adulatory-almost hagiographic-tone that I haven't seen since the Che Guevara article, and even that particular Wiki was more thoroughly balanced, IMO.

Ruthfulbarbarity 20:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Indenting your signature

Hi. I've noticed that you indent your paragraphs just right on talk pages, but don't do the same with your signature. This can make it a little difficult to follow the thread of conversation at times, so would you mind indenting them to the same level as the paragraphs above? Thank you :) —Xyrael / 17:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that.
I never noticed before. Ruthfulbarbarity 19:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Warning about editing other users comments

This is an official WP warning template ((notyours))

You were wrong....

I noticed that you edited someone else's comment at [[at [[{{{1}}}]]]] for clarity, spelling or grammar. As a rule, refrain from editing others' comments without their permission. Though it may appear helpful to correct typing errors, grammar, etc., please do not go out of your way to bring talk pages to publishing standards, since it is not terribly productive and will tend to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. For more details, see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thanks,

Again.

Don't EVER edit my comments

Again.

NBGPWS 05:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Get over it. Ruthfulbarbarity 14:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for a vote

Hi Ruthful,

Thanks for creating the Richard Brookhiser page. I don't know if you have any interest in whether or not the Category:American conservatives page continues to exist, but it's currently under threat of being eliminated. I think it's something useful for anyone who wants to learn more about conservatism. Anyway, whatever your opinion, if you have one I hope you'll go to that category page and follow the link to vote on whether or not to delete it. Again, thanks for the Brookhiser page.Noroton 22:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mr. Signorile

For what it's worth, the journalist you wrote up at Michael Signorile already has an article at Michelangelo Signorile, and he's never, ever referred to as simply "Michael". Your article's been redirected to the existing one; feel free to expand that one if necessary rather than writing an alternate one at a name he doesn't use. Bearcat 04:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. Although I would add that others have referred to him by that shorthand, although it appears that you are correct, in the sense that he has never used that diminutive in the byline for any publications he has written for, and doesn't refer to himself in that manner. Ruthfulbarbarity 20:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] political gossip

Please do not add inaccurate political gossip.

You will be reported to the authorities and we will recommend that your editing privileges are withdrawn.

Sign your comments, Necons. Ruthfulbarbarity 17:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Political categories

I notice that you edit/create articles on NY Assembly members (and maybe other policticans). Can I recommend that you add a few more categories. These seem like a good start, (obviously changing the names and the birth year.)

[[Category:New York politicians|Englebright, Steven]]  
 [[Category:Members of the New York Assembly|Englebright, Steven]]  
 [[Category:1946 births|Englebright, Steven]]

Just a thought, Best Jdclevenger 15:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Userboxes

Replied to you on userbox discussion page. Ian¹³/t 20:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the assistance. Ruthfulbarbarity 21:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] As if you needed encouragement...

gd-0 Bha Gàidhlig aig seaneairean agus seanmhairean agam.


"My grandfathers and grandmothers spoke [Scottish] Gaelic."

— OtherDave 04:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

LOL.
It's actually quite possible, seeing as how my paternal ancestors came from somewhere in Ireland, although most of them probably spoke the Irish variety.
In fact, I still have distant relatives-supposedly-that live somewhere in rural Ireland, and the odd cousin or two who learned how to speak it for purely aesthetic purposes.
Still, I think I'll refrain from the gratuitous userboxen additions for the time being.
 :) Ruthfulbarbarity 04:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stephenson

You actually agreed with NBGPWS? It's the sign of the apocalypse ! --Tbeatty 22:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

LOL.
In the most limited way possible.
I actually agree that Stephenson attained minor notability in his life-time.
I realize that Wikipedia doesn't accept exclusively Web-based notability claims in a lot of instances, which I happen to disagree with in many circumstances.
This being one. Ruthfulbarbarity 22:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your opinion wanted

Hi, just wanted to know if you could offer an opinion on a request for deletion on an article that you looked at once before. I think it's a historically significant interview, because it's one of the few (if only) examples where Clinton has gone on record about his administration's performance on al Queda...

Thanks..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2006_Chris_Wallace_interview_of_Bill_Clinton

[edit] No Personal Attacks

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. BenBurch 16:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't a personal attack.
It was a generic-rather restrained, considering your previous behavior-observation, which most people would probably agree with.
Don't attempt to utilize my user page in order to post frivolous or unmerited warnings.
That's a violation of Wikipedia guidelines and could get you in hot water if you're not careful.
You have the same rights, and commensurate responsibilities, as any other Wikipedia editor.
No more, no less, and you are expected to abide by the same rules and regulations.
Just remember that. Ruthfulbarbarity 20:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:NBGPWS

He's being monitored so let's not antagonize him any. If he keeps up with his hate speech, I will extend his block to indefinite.--MONGO 05:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough.
It's just frustrating that so much time is consumed monitoring the behavior of one user who seems to delight in serving as a nuisance to other members of the Wikipedia community.
In any case, I appreciate the diligence of you and other Wikipedians in trying to resolve this issue. Ruthfulbarbarity 05:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


OK, let's keep this off N's page. Here's a rundown of your edits on N's talk page. I emphasize "on" because you have repeatedly been asked to stay "off" it.

  • Here is N asking you not to post on his page, because you have been harassing and baiting him.[2]
  • Here is you baiting him (last line, in response to comment having nothing to do with him) [3]
  • Here is you baiting him, with irony style points [4]
  • Here is you baiting him [5]
  • Here is you baiting him, in accordance with WP:you can taunt your blocked opponent if you salute WP policy while doing so.[6]
  • Here is me skipping a bunch more baiting because I can't spend all morning on this.
  • Here is N asking you not to post harassment and baiting on his page, yet again [7]
  • Here is MONGO telling you not to post on that page again.[8]
  • Here is you acknowledging that to MONGO [9]
  • Here is MONGO instructing people not to bait him[10]
  • Here is you baiting him on that page[11]
  • Here is me asking you not to bait him after the above baiting [12]
  • Here is you saying, on that page, you were merely "correct misconceptions"[13]
  • Here is me pointing you to the diff showing only baiting[14]
  • Here is you posting there yet again in defiance of MONGO's request,[15] this time simply repeating again that you were "correcting misconceptions" which you plainly were not. [16]

You are doing every bit as much as N, if not more, to keep this thing going. Post there one more time, and I'll be posting you on ANI. Capiche? Derex 20:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I am sure threatening other editors is the way to diffuse the situation. --NuclearZer0 23:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
That's not a threat. That's information. Derex 23:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Point well-taken.
I'll allow others-who don't have the exasperating, frustrating history of dealing with his behavior in other venues-deal with this. Ruthfulbarbarity 23:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Again, I have no interest in engaging the aforementioned individual-either here or on any other forum-I'm merely raising the question of why he can "ban" other editors from replying to him on his user page.
It's possible that this is Wikipedia policy, but I don't see it being raised in response to other repeatedly blocked, problem users.
For the sake of peace I'll ignore him. I'm just curious as to why the provocateur-in this case, Neocons, gets to determine policy. Ruthfulbarbarity 23:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
It's not policy. It's courtesy. Going out of your way to provoke someone, and that is what you were doing, is not helpful. It does enter actionable territory when an admin has expressly asked you not to do so. I do appreciate your good faith in backing off though. Derex 23:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you.
I'll try to respect that courtesy.
If it hadn't been for unrelated edit wars and afd discussions involving that user I probably wouldn't have even bothered responding to him again. Ruthfulbarbarity 23:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Lets just stay off his page for now...please. No good can come from direct dialogue on each others pages..keep discussions in article space for the time being. Thanks.--MONGO 03:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Alright. Ruthfulbarbarity 15:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re George Harrison

Just wanted to let you know that I have modified the language you deemed to be "loaded"; hopefully acceptably, while maintaing the basic truth re the jury attendance at the party in question.

Having looked over your user boxes re your ethnic/geographical background, I hope you are being fully impartial in the matter. Btw, you have two somewhat contradictory userboxes (Roman Catholic, lapsed Catholic), which I recommed be considered for updating.

Yours sincerely,

AsburyPark 00:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


Thank you.
I don't mind including details about that post-acquittal gathering-if it actually took place and you can come up with the relevant citations and sources to prove it-but I'd prefer to keep the subjective and speculative assertions, i.e. he was acquitted for Reason X, to a minimum. Ruthfulbarbarity 04:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AfD that might be of interest to you

Liberty Post 2nd AfD LP is inarguably a notable forum! - F.A.A.F.A. 08:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Please refer to me by my handle FAAFA. People unfamiliar with my 'history' or my previous FULL user name could think that "Neocons" indicates an endorsement of Neoconservatism - which couldn't be further from the truth. Thanks for your cooperation. Sorry Freepers want to delete 'your' article. Another politically motivated AfD, IMHO. (salutation redacted)- F.A.A.F.A. 23:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Since you broached the subject, please stop referring to me as CP. I don't know where you are getting the P from. My handle is one word, and if one WERE to try to shorten it to two letters, it would be CS. But I know it's just your little private way of insulting me without outright insulting me, so please stop it. And don't expect everyone to instantly warm up to your ham-handed attempts at cordiality. I dropped my guard for you, and gave you a chance, which worked out ok for about two days. Then you apparently perceived it as a sign of weakness on my part, and you fucked me. Don't ever mistake my willingness to compromise and be cordial as a sign of weakness. I'm here for the long haul, and I have the memory of an elephant. - Crockspot 17:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Stop spamming my user page with your customary nonsense.
Consider this a warning. Ruthfulbarbarity 03:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Look what happens when I try to be cordial. Some people! Start referring to me by my correct username as of NOW - F.A.A.F.A. 20:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC) 06:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Cordial? You're kidding right?. Dman727 08:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
1. Sign your posts, -FAAFA.
2. Consider this to be more material in your rfc. Don't say you weren't warned. Ruthfulbarbarity 16:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Use my correct name. - F.A.A.F.A. 20:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Four tildes after each comment posted.
This information shouldn't be too difficult to digest, especially for someone who has been: registered with Wikipedia for several months.
And you're not helping your argument by continually repeating the very actions that drew your rfc in the first place. Ruthfulbarbarity 22:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Also, don't edit any of my comments...ever.
Unless it's a minor edit-or you want to correct some genuine mischaracterization-I suggest that you cease and desist from doing so immediately. Ruthfulbarbarity 22:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
FAAFA has asked he not be called a neocon...so I guess I have fulfilled my admin requirement for the day...Happy Thanksgiving--MONGO 04:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Heh.
Happy Thanksgiving.
Ruthfulbarbarity 15:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
NAAFA has told me that while he stopped referring to you and others by some slangy username, you and others have continued to do so...this must stop. If this continues then I recommend all parties take the case from the NAAFA Rfc and shoot it over to arbcom for final resolution...there everyone can post their evidence and let the arbitrators find some sort of resolution. I have been looking over the comments on the NAAFA Rfc and there seems to be no compromise there between all parties involved...so if everyone can't work together, then arbitration is in order.--MONGO 21:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with that assessment. Ruthfulbarbarity 23:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
By the way, that's not a descriptive term on my part.
His original name on Wikipedia was NBGPWS, i.e. "NeoconsBeGoneProtestWarriorSux."
"Neocons" is the shorthand that he replied to on other sites, before he was summarily banned from them.
But if he wants to be described by his current online pseudonym-I still don't quite understand why he felt the need to create an alternative user name, but I suppose that's beside the point-then I won't object to doing so. Ruthfulbarbarity 23:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Ruthful, I thought you might be interested to learn that in retaliation for my stated interest in enforcing WP:NPOV#Undue Weight, and thereby preventing the article about Free Republic from being the hit piece they obviously wanted, F.A.A.F.A. and the Wiki member he supports, defends and serves in all matters Wiki, BenBurch, have started a sockpuppet investigation against me. It's been going on for seven days now. No request for a CheckUser yet; this accusation is being used solely for the purpose of interrogating me. -- BryanFromPalatine 04:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jeremy Hammond

Thanks for your support to Keep Jeremy Hammond and for your edits. I think the article is looking much better. I think I need to take back saying "hackers and parody protesters might be difficult." Edivorce 19:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Al Gore III

Just wanted to call your attention to a discussion on an article for deletion. You can participate here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Gore III (6th nomination).--Getaway 20:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ken Jowitt

My pleasure, and I hope you enjoyed the film! Jokestress 01:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Very much so.

I can't say I was expecting a comedy, but I was pleasantly surprised.

Ruthfulbarbarity 03:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eldridge Cleaver

I know you added a citation for him being a convert to Christianity from Islam, but can you find a source that he ever was muslim?--Sefringle 18:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that he necessarily was a Muslim.
If he was, then I don't think it was of the NOI variety, although I could be mistaken.
He was a very eccentric, colorful figure, so it wouldn't surprise me. Ruthfulbarbarity 19:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/u/t/User_talk%7ERuthfulbarbarity_49e3.html"