User talk:Ruthrachel18

BS"D

Article moved to draft

Hello, I recently moved an article you created to Draft:Sandy Spring Slave Museum and Art Gallery. I have taken this action as the article fails to conform to Wikipedia's MOS. I would also like to ask (based on the tone of the article) if you as an editor have any sort of connection to the subject museum.--SamHolt6 (talk) 15:47, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SamHolt6,

A reponse, however delayed (because I did not even know how to use "Talk" in Wikipedia when these events first occurred):

Historians usually seek to preserve the history of what they know. Whether or not other people are interested in that history is another story. I have noticed in Wikipedia differences in response to different pieces of history which I have sought to help preserve.

In any case, the tone of the (very) short article about the "Sandy Spring Slave Museum" which I had drafted, but which had not yet been fully cited, however, was quite neutral. I read it many times after it kept getting deleted or pushed to the side in Wikipedia...

For the moment, I will focus on preserving this and other histories in some other way. Thank you.

--Ruth Rachel AA (talk) 02:56, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Emawayish Gerima

Hello Ruthrachel18,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Emawayish Gerima for deletion, because it seems to be inappropriate for a variety of reasons. For more details please see the notice on the article.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

SamHolt6 (talk) 16:08, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SamHolt6,

Once again, for the moment, I will focus on preserving this and other histories in some other way. Thank you.

--Ruth Rachel AA (talk) 03:00, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Emawayish Gerima

Hello Ruthrachel18,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Emawayish Gerima for deletion, because it seems to be inappropriate for a variety of reasons. For more details please see the notice on the article.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

SamHolt6 (talk) 17:04, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want I can restore this as a draft, but at present the article falls far, far short of the minimum standards for publication in the main namespace. —Cryptic 17:14, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Sandy Spring Slave Museum and Art Gallery

Hello, Ruthrachel18. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Sandy Spring Slave Museum and Art Gallery, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Bot0612 (talk) 16:03, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bot0612,

OK. Thank you.

--Ruth Rachel AA (talk) 03:42, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 2020

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, as you did at Bindlestiff Family Cirkus, you may be blocked from editing. Drmies (talk) 02:30, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies: My editing in Wikipedia has been academic, and fully cited. However, the deletions made to the article(s) in question have been unjustified and subjective (with one possible exception - the Bindlestiff Family Cirkus "mission statement", which I did not even contribute to the article concerned), in my humble opinion, and have also resulted in the deletion of accurate citations which I have submitted, largely confirming information already included in the text of the article before I began to edit it. My stated concerns have yet to be addressed by those persons reversing my edits and confirmations via additional references (whether in English, or French, or any other language), including yourself.

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Drmies (talk) 02:31, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies: The personal attack was made upon me today, by numerous people, and clearly seems to represent a bias in content editing in Wikipedia based upon "perceived" importance of (or lack of importance of) a subject matter (or an editor/contributor), rather than objective editing based upon an accurate statement and confirmation of factual information (no matter the editor/contributor), in my humble opinion.

Please do not use Wikipedia to promote businesses, like you did in the article Norfolk Academy. Wikipedia is not a trade directory. If you want to list a company for potential customers to find, please consider alternative outlets. Thank you. I think you are editing for money. All the articles you worked on show the same pattern of promotional edits. Drmies (talk) 02:37, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies: If you think that I am editing for money in this capacity, you are simply wrong. Moreover, the school concerned, Norfolk Academy, represents a non-profit orgnization, and not a business. Finally, a number of your reversals of my edits in this case also result in the deletion of facts which are fully accurate and which are correctly stated.

Does Wikipedia represent objectivity in the exploration of a subject matter, or the subjectivity of those who are the editorial "gatekeepers"?

--Ruth Rachel AA (talk) 07:44, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ruthrachel18, if you have questions about the block, please ask me instead of Drmies. If you would like to appeal the block, please read the instructions probably accidentally removed by you at the bottom of Special:PermanentLink/941551170. Please do not use your talk page to continue editing with an undisclosed conflict of interest. Instead, please disclose your affiliation to the topics you are editing about, and consider making a formal block appeal. See WP:GAB for details. Thanks and best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:36, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ToBeFree,

As I wrote to SamHolt6 above, historians usually seek to preserve the history of what they know. Whether or not other people are interested in that history is another story. I have noticed in Wikipedia differences in response to different pieces of history which I have sought to help preserve here (all of which are not represented on my "Talk" page, all of which are not in English).

I imagine that most editors/contributors to Wikipedia write about those persons, topics, subject matters, concerns which they know, or which inspire them. This does not mean that one's work cannot be objective, level, well-though-out, properly cited. This does not mean that someone is working here in a paid capacity. These are also assumptions which seem to make Wikipedia less authentic, more non academic, in my humble opinion (please see my "Thank you" to AnomieBOT below).

In any case, I certainly deserved to be heard by you and Drmies in a more judicious manner prior to being blocked...and I simply do not have the time or energy to rehash the events of yesterday. Perhaps Wikipedia is simply not my optimal medium for intellectual expression or pursuits.

For the moment, I will focus on preserving the histories which inspire me in some other way (and keep reading/consulting Wikipedia from time to time, as the case may be...).

Thank you.

--Ruth Rachel AA (talk) 03:42, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum, 20 February 2020

Addendum, ToBeFree - The following message which I placed for Drmies on his talk page (and saved for myself by e-mail) was never responded to by him, and was also deleted or somehow made unable to be viewed (by him, by you and he both, by Wikipedia? - I have no answer to this question...):

"Ananias Leki Dago" | Your Edits of 02:33 - 02:49, 19 February 2020 [edit source]

Drmies,

Regarding your following edits of the English language article for Ananias Leki Dago:

curprev 02:49, 19 February 2020‎ Drmies talk contribs‎ 11,586 bytes -23‎ undothank
curprev 02:48, 19 February 2020‎ Drmies talk contribs‎ 11,609 bytes -184‎ more undothank
curprev 02:35, 19 February 2020‎ Drmies talk contribs‎ 11,793 bytes -232‎ trying to get this into shape: this is a likely COI-edited and wholly fluffy article undothank
curprev 02:34, 19 February 2020‎ Drmies talk contribs‎ 12,025 bytes -102‎ cleanup per MOS. rm useless and unacceptable inline links, including spam vimeo links undothank
curprev 02:33, 19 February 2020‎ Drmies talk contribs‎ 12,127 bytes -550‎ →‎External Links: rm spam links undothank

You have deleted:

- an official name authority file with references for this artist in multiple countries and multiple academic databases;
- external links to profiles for this artist which are substantial and important to his work (France Culture, Africultures), and which accurately represent his person;
- external links for visual works about this artist which go directly to an official record of this work; and
- a record of alternative spellings of the name of this artist which are recorded in various sources.

None of the above is "fluff" or "COI", as you have so claimed. It is documentation and citation which is completely accurate.

Your edits result in a misrepresentation of this artist, as well as the breadth of the body of work of this artist. The deletion of the name authority file for this artist is particularly unwarranted, in my humble opinion, as he has also contributed to many collaborative works which are visible only upon the consultation of the name authority files.

Please help me to understand your position (despite my difference of opinion, as you can see).

--Ruth Rachel AA (talk) 06:37, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

---> ToBeFree, I had a feeling that this message to Drmies would be ignored, and so I saved a copy of it, and I was right. This message, placed directly on the talk page of Drmies, was completely deleted, and given absolutely no response (and he is fully well-versed in the use of the "Talk" function). Thank you. --Ruth Rachel AA (talk) 13:32, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't "ignored", it was deleted. The way Wikipedia works you don't need to "save" a copy: it's there in the history. I did respond to it: it's right there in the edit summary. Drmies (talk) 16:56, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies,
The message which I posted on your "Talk" page on 19 February 2020 is there in your edit history. A response from you, of any kind, is NOT. Thank you.
--Ruth Rachel AA (talk) 18:22, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"right there in the edit summary" Drmies (talk) 21:16, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And please stop pinging me. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 22:57, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You, AnomieBOT - ❤

BS"D

AnomieBOT,

THANK YOU for restoring at least one (1) of the citations/references which I contributed to Wikipedia on 19 Feb 2020 in order to confirm assertions and statements, both priorly existing and contributed, made in the article "Bindlestiff Family Cirkus".

Further deletions of both information and confirming references by primary and secondary sources (including for visual arts references which were not only confirmed by IMDb, but also by Variety (an establishment newspaper/magazine in the United States), the SF Weekly, and the International Academy of Digital Arts and Sciences (IADAS)/The Webby Awards - JzG, Marchjuly) occurred before I was blocked from Wikipedia (by humankind...alas!), but at least you "rescued" one (1) of the completely valid (and most important - Smithsonian Institution) deleted references.

You, AnomieBOT, automated as you are, have restored some of the faith which I have lost in Wikipedia, which is wonderful and inspiring in many ways, but which is certainly NOT an academic or historical source.

For your hard work in objectivity in editing, a cupcake (which I can't send via Wikilove, because I am blocked - "not free to be", but which I can send you here)...

Thank You. (and Enjoy!)

--Ruth Rachel AA (talk) 01:44, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Request, 13 July 2020

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Ruthrachel18 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Although I certainly still believe the block in question not to have been justified (please see the above discussion from Feb 2020), particularly in respect of a person who is still in the process of learning how to code Wikipedia and becoming well-versed in using Wikipedia, I now understand certain parameters of participation in the site which I did not understand prior, particularly as relates to the addition or editing of an article to which one may have a personal link or relationship (although such does not necessarily represent conflict of interest ("COI"), in my humble opinion), as described above; the disclosure requirements of Wikipedia are clear.

I will now make a clear disclosure that my manner of participating in the site is to write about those noteworthy people, places, things, and events (generally, "contributions") of which I have a true and direct knowledge; I consider such to be more authentic in my participation in the site, and to be more intellectually sound, quite frankly. I do so for contribution to society and to the collaborative wealth of knowledge which we call "Wikipedia", free of charge (I have never received payment for any contribution made here).

At the same time, I would also like to request that Wikipedia play closer attention to the types of edits being made to additions (and editions) of articles. Some of the edits made by me in Feb 2020 which were then summarily deleted or reversed were fully cited and well documented points of interest which fell clearly within the Wikipedia guidelines.

Many, many thanks in advance for your time.

-- Ruth Rachel AA

72.218.234.196 (talk) 08:03, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. You need to sign in with your account in order to make an unblock request. Note also that I'd almost certainly have declined an unblock request like this, even had you made it with your account. It doesn't appear you understand WP:COI and WP:PAID. Yamla (talk) 10:23, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

❧ Dear Yamla, I have been unable log into my Wikipedia account since February 2020. In fact, I was unable to log into my account yesterday when I made the Unblock Request. At this stage, I understand WP:COI and WP:PAID perfectly well. Perhaps you do not agree with me, but I do certainly have a right to my own opinion.

Ironic that one comes to Wikipedia to find it overrun by techno-fascists who get a kick out of wielding their power to block people with whom they simply do not agree from participation in the entire site (though if one were to block another personally in an internet forum, that is certainly within their right)...Perhaps I shall find myself blocked even from entering my Wikipedia account once again tomorrow by you.

Sigh. So much for the internet as the "great democratizer" in Wikiworld. The very same misogyny which one finds in academia is also reflected in Wikiworld, but at least academia REQUIRES intellectual integrity. (Quite boring at this point, actually. Quite Sad. My Wikiidealism bubble has burst. Halas...)

❧ Ruth Rachel AA (talk) 06:09, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Ruth Rachel Yvonne Anderson-Avraham

Hello, Ruthrachel18. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Ruth Rachel Yvonne Anderson-Avraham, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 01:01, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Ruth Rachel Yvonne Anderson-Avraham

Hello, Ruthrachel18. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Ruth Rachel Yvonne Anderson-Avraham".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:30, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]