PSRuckman

Reasoning with JzG and Arbustoo

I would really hate to have the misrepresentations and poor editing of the above individuals be lost in a sea of whining about personal attacks - although I understand the strategy well. So, let's put them out to dry, one by one:

ONE My position is that Peter Ruckman is also known as "Dr. Peter S. Ruckman." My position is supported by my knowledge of the topic (JzG says, below, he does not know Peter Ruckman from a hole in the ground) and about 2,300 Google hits. The position of JzG/Arbustoo is that, in their opinions, persons with earned (not honorary) doctorates from unaccredited institutions are not worthy of the title "Dr." That is to say, my position is based on an empirical reality (the man is clearly known by that title) and theirs is based on their view of how they think (or wish) the world should be. Ah, heck. You might even call it a POV. When the perfectly reasonable compromise was offered ... Peter Ruckman (a.k.a. Dr. Peter S. Ruckman) ... they rejected it.

TWO The title of the entry is "Peter Ruckman," but JzG/Arbustoo have edited the article to begin "Peter S. Ruckman ..." It is very poor editing on their part.

THREE JzG/Arbustoo seem to think "Bible" should not be capitalized. Source for view possibly the same as source for point ONE (above).

The entry lists his degree, so I fail to understand what your complaint is precisely. What do you think is lost by not refering to him as Dr.? As for point Two, so what? It happens to be his middle initial, is there something wrong with including middle initials? As for three- where is Bible not capitalized? JoshuaZ 19:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Peter Ruckman

If you are the subject of this article, you would be well advised not to edit it directly (see this guideline and this one). If you are not the subject, but have a similar name, you should probably explain on the Talk page ot (TO: Edit by PSRuckman) avoid misunderstandings. If you are not the subject but have deliberately chosen a similar name then you may be in breach of the Wikipedia policy on appropriate user names. In any case, edits to Peter S. Ruckman by User:PSRuckman are likely to be scrutinised (SCRUTINIZED: Edit by PSRuckman). All information in articles on Wikipedia should be neutrally stated and verifiable from reputable sources. Just zis Guy you know? 19:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

If I were the subject of the article (which I am not - nor did I create it), I would feel prefectly free to edit anything erroneous or libelous. But I appreciate your care and consideration. If I have a similar name, I am not certain that would shed any light on anything. The history of edits clearly indicates the irrational nature of the person seeking to have it removed. In addition, I have no concern whatsoever about violating any policy regarding appropriate names. Otherwise, I welcome scrutiny. Indeed, that is exactly what has been sought. I have just enough faith in people (except you) to assume that, if anyone takes the times to look at the edit history, they will see what is going on. I did not create the page, but I cannot be harrassed away from contributing to it in a positive fashion. The other user simply aims to trash the page to justify his own request for removal. I realize that can be casually dismissed as "name calling," but scrutiny of the history validates the position. In sum heighten the scrutiny, please. ASAP.

I would like to strongly emphasize the wikipedia (Wikipedia: Edit by PSRuckman) guidelines on editing articles that one might be connected to, especially those for articles that may be about yourself. JoshuaZ 16:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Editor JzG / JoshuaZ: I appreciate your sincere care and concern, and would like to strongly emphasize the Wikipedia guidelines on editing articles and vandalism. There, you might find better reason to be concerned with the page in question. Otherwise, I generally welcome your interest in Ruckman's three marriages. One of the least relevant and insightful additions to the page. By the way, where is your neutral, verifiable source for this?

Calm down. First, I'd be very interested in how these edits constitute vandalism. Second, simply adding "dr." in front of someone's name when there (THEIR: Edit by PSRuckman) doctorate is from an unaccredited institution is not building up. As for your attakcs (ATTACKS: edit by PSRuckman) on Arbustroo, they are a bit misplaced. In general attacking other wiki editors is highly frowned upon and will not convince anyone. JoshuaZ 19:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I note that Peter Ruckman has a son called P. S. Ruckman. If you are connected with the subject you are strongly advised not to edit directly. Also, if you continue to edit-war you may be blocked for vandalism. The way Wikipedia deals with controversy is to talk about it, not to edit war. Just zis Guy you know? 19:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

JzG - I guess your research on his marriages is better than your research otherwise. Where do you find that he has a son named P.S. Ruckman??? Otherwise, I will take your "advise" under consideration. As I gaze over your storm of typos, I will correct them as I see them. If you would like to punish me for the name I use, break a leg buddy. Have to admit though, assuming this entity is interested in making money as it informs readers, I like my chances with any intelligent scrutiny process - not one by you, of course. You may inconvenience me a bit, but business-sense usually wins out in the long run. Meanwhile, you should stop your edit war.

First, my identity is no secret and discovering it is a simple matter of visiting my user page. Second, I would not know Peter Ruckman from a hole in the ground, so I am at a loss to understand why I should be biased, whereas you claim not to be. Third, personalising the matter can result in you being inconvenienced more than a bit. Fourth, the information re P. S Ruckman was posted by another editor somewhere else, it's not my research. Please calm down and try to remain civil.

With each post, you seem less deserving of respect (1) "Posted by another editor somewhere else." Well, now isn't that special (2) I did not claim to be without bias. So, stop lying about me. (3) At a loss are you? Let's see, you wrote ... (Restore info lost in reversion of anon's whitewasing. Was in earlier, and is significant in context.) Yeah, that just reeks of neutrality. Elsewhere, you have written ... (''Were these reviewers chosen at random by an independent reviewing body? No such claim is made. There is something about a "uiversity"(UNIVERSITY: Edit by PSRuckman) which is inaccredited (UNACCREDITED: Edit by PSRuckman), employs a lotof (LOT OF: Edit by PSRuckman) its own graduates, and fails to lodge doctoral theses with external bodies (let alone subject them to peer exposure) which inspires scepticism (SKEPTICISM: Edit by PSRuckman). (Wow! Cleaning up after the writing you and Arbustoo do could be another full time job for someone!) But, yep, you are clearly without bias on this and related topics. But, oh, you are at a loss. Oh deary.

Yes, posted by another editor. Trange to relate, I often believe my fellow editors when they say they have found something out. I did not say you claimed to be without bias, I said that you are unlikely to be able to edit without bias which is different.

Man, I had the feeling you were not paying much attention to what you were writing. No, actually you wrote, and I quote, "I am at a loss to understand why I should be biased, whereas you claim not to be." So spelling and grammar are not the only things you do not pay attention to.

and is why WP strongly discourages editing on subjects where you are personally involved. As to the occasionaly typing error, I suggest you try burning the fingers of your left hand until you have bone-deep scars across the knuckles and then see how accurately you type. And for your information "scepticism" is valid British English spelling. Just zis Guy you know? 07:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

If I had a pound for every time somebody deeply involved with a subject has accused the "evil Wikipedia admin cabal" of "vandalising" their work I'd be able to retire and do this full-time :-) Just zis Guy you know? 22:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC

I accept your mean spirited insult, that I am paranoid because I can see that you cannot spell or edit in a consistent manner. It must be a handy tool in your case. Your made up rule about "Dr." really shows your slant and there is no need to try to dress it up differently now. The topic is known as "Dr. Peter S. Ruckman" (well over 2,000 hits on Google) and your refusal to recognize that is not based on empirical reality, but instead, your narrow view of how you think the world should be. You are not informing readers. You are trying to indoctrinate them in your opinion and bias.

Please, let's not pretend otherwise.

Hmmm. So pretending that a doctorate form an unaccredited university is a real academic distinction is balanced, and noting that it is so, is indoctrination. Funny, I didn't see it that way round myself. Just zis Guy you know? 07:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how to make this any more clear: calling people stupid and illiterate doesn't accomplish anything, doesn't convince anyone of anything and certainly doesn't convince the people you are insulting. Please actually read WP:CIVIL for the relevant guidelines. JoshuaZ 01:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Please stop characterizing legitimate concerns about typos and inconsistent edits as "personal attacks." Capitalize "Bible" and fix the dead link you created.

One can point out/correct problems without calling the writers "illiterate" or "stupid." JoshuaZ 15:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Warning

From use of language and detail of edits it is hard to conclude anything other than that you and the an on editor at Peter Ruckman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) are one and the same. You have now reverted more than three times. If you revert again you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. You have already gone past the three reverts. No more will be tolerated. Just zis Guy you know? 19:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Being somewhat new, I was not aware that you could revert 3 times (and vandalize the page in the process) but I could not revert to a more constructive version. Watch how fast I learn though.

• 20:37, 2 March 2006 JzG m (Reverted edits by PSRuckman (talk) to last version by JzG)
• 20:31, 2 March 2006 JzG m (Reverted edits by PSRuckman (talk) to last version by JzG)
• 19:51, 2 March 2006 JzG (Revert contentious edits by probable relative of the subject, take it to Talk)

That's three. Which is the limit (but three and more are allowed in good-faith vandal fighting). You reverted many more than three times, counting the reverts when you had not signed in. You also don't use edit summaries or explain what you are doing and why.

Here's one thing you might like to take away and mull over, though - battles to enforce a non-neutral point of view on a Wikipedia article tend to end in failure, since in the end the Wikipedia admins hold all the cards.

• Guess my good luck is that you cannot give a single example of anything like a non-neutral edit.

It is enerally (GENERALLY: Edit by PSRuckman) considered impossible to be neutral on a subject with which you are personally involved, which is why I have recommended several times that you do not edit the article directly, something you appear to have ignored.

• And, it is a good thing that it is just "generally," because the editing in this case is of such a low grade quality.

Tolerance for uncritical portrayal of, in particular, controversial fundamentalist Christians is at a very low ebb right now.

• I will take that to mean, you will impose your intolerance on all users of this resource.

If you were fair minded and gave more attention, you would have noticed that I have been as critical of the topic as anyone. I know. I know. Go ahead and tell me that to point out your faulty criticisms is a "personal attack." I've got the routine down.

I see that others are now getting involved with the article, hopefully a wider community of editors will result in a more balanced view. Do feel free to raise factual concerns on the Talk page, but once again I urge you not to edit the article directly, since you are very clearly personally involved. Just zis Guy you know? 22:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• And I urge you, given your religious inclinations, to refrain from editing a topic which you very clearly cannot do in a fair manner.

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. The block period is 24 hours. Please do not continue this behaviour on your return, discuss edits on the Talk page since you are clearly associated with the subject it is highly problematic for you to edit the article at all, let alone edit war over it. Just zis Guy you know? 20:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks.

Please desist from making personall attacks about other wikipedians. They are highly frowned upon and do not accomplish anything. If you persist, you will be blocked. JoshuaZ 22:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Please stop characterizing all legitimate commentary on your numerous typos and inconsistent editing as "personal attacks." Capitalize "Bible" and fix the dead link you created. You have some clear POV problems as well.

Oh, and one more "personal attack" for JzG and Arbusto, you are really butchering up the Pensacola Bible Institute page as well. What a great sentence this is: More specifically, Ruckman holds that the popular King James Version of the Bible is a superior English translation and that the methodology typically employed in new translations such as the is false or at best inconsistent. Keep those writing and editing standards high!

Personal attack, part 2: On the California Biblical University and Seminary page (which user Arbustoo has edited) there is an individual with a doctorate from an unaccredited school, but User Arbustoo has not deleted the "Dr." from his name. Shall I view this as another inconsistency, or just more very poor editing on your part?

You misunderstand what personal attack means in this context. For wikipedia (Wikipedia: edit by PSRuckman) purposes, a personal attack is not negative information/edits about someone on an article. A personal attack is a statement directed at a fellow wikipedian such as calling them "illiterate" or calling their edits "stupid." No one else has engaged in personal attacks as such. I strongly urge you to familiarize yourself with the various basic wikipedia (Wikipedia: Edit by PSRuckman) policies and terminology. The following is generally considered a good starting list:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope that this is helpful. JoshuaZ 05:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I see you still have not made the changes. What is the hold up? I can't fix the poor writing, of course, because you have blocked me from it.

Signing your comments.

Also you may want to sign your comments by putting ~~~~ which will replace the ~~~~ with your name and time of edit. It is quite convenient and is generally considered the standard signing method. JoshuaZ 05:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)</nowiki>

No, I don't really see any sense in that, at this point. You have already indicated that, if anyone disagrees with you, then it must certainly be me. I can deal with that as it seems to be standard Wiki behavior. indee, I have received warnings for vanadalizing pages I have never even seen, much less edited. So, you just go ahead and assume away. I am all fine with that.

Actually, I modified Pensacola Bible Institute per your earlier comments. If you want to list here what other grammar and spelling issues you think need to be changed (and on which pages) I will be happy to look at them and change those I agree with. JoshuaZ 06:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I see. And what a poor edit it was. The original statement referred to all new versions generally - which has a real, dead on accuracy about it. But, for some really odd reason, you singled out the NIV. What, is that your favorite version, or something? Now, get over to the California Biblical University and Seminary page and work on that "Dr." there with your fantasy land rule.

It gives a common example, it doesn't single out the NIV. "new translations such as the New International Version is false or at best inconsistent." NIV was by your standard singled out in the previous version of the article also. The current version seems highly reasonable to me, especially given that the NIV is one of the translations most commonly attacked by KJV-onlyists. JoshuaZ 06:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC) To clarify, the very next sentence in the previous draft "singled out" the NIV to the same extent.

Forgive me, but what I have put in bold print makes no sense at all to me. If you mean to say that I singled out the NIV, you are wrong. In addition, the page is not about "KJV-onlyists." It is about Ruckman, who holds the same opinion about all modern versions. While you may have a personal view about the NIV, or a personal view about KJV-onlyists and the NIV, the page is about Ruckman's view, not yours. You really can't put yourself in a very objective mode long, or do not try very hard to. And to think, it is generally assumed, that I cannot write in an objective manner because of the name I use. What a hoot.

First, as to bolding by sentence: please be aware that it is bad form to modify what someone else has put in a talk page(aside from certain technical exceptions). In general, quoting the relevant sections is more acceptable. Second as to clarifying what I meant: the draft prior to the current one said "More specifically, Ruckman holds that the popular King James Version of the Bible is a superior English translation and that the methodology typically employed in new translations such as the is false or at best inconsistent. This is a controversial view, since many of these translations (for example the New International Version ) have involved considerable scholarly input." Thus the NIV was already mentioned as a specific case. That is what I meant by "NIV was by your standard singled out in the previous version of the article also." Third, as to mentioning the NIV: examples are generally good things. The NIV is simply chosen as an example. If there is some version that you think would make a better example in this context, I would be happy to put that one there instead. JoshuaZ 06:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• Yeah, I can't really explain the simple point any better. If you want to arbitrarily draw attention to the NIV, because it is your personal favorite, that is fine. I am only noting the fact that Ruckman's approach is not aimed specifically at the NIV, but at all (as in every single one) new translations. I know, I know, facts are personal attacks. If you must misinform and misrepresent, and devalue Wikipedia, then who I am I to stop you?

Personally, I think the KJV and the NIV are both poor translations. However, people reading the page might very well have no idea what one means by "modern" translations. Hence it makes sense to give an example. Again, if you prefer a different example, I'll be happy to put that example in instead. Which other one would you prefer? JoshuaZ 19:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

If you could point out specific grammar and spelling issues on the other pages I will be happy to look into them. JoshuaZ 06:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC) Do you mean California Biblical University and Seminary? I don't see any edits or listed complaints there by you. JoshuaZ 06:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I am not complaining there. I am complaining here, to you. You need to go to that page and get rid of the title "Dr." there - using the fantasy land rule you that you have. Arbustoo has edited the page poorly, or wants only to apply it here.

Arbustoo has many pages to edit and isn't going to do everything perfectly. He is a very productive editor, but his time and resources are still finite. In any event, I have made the desired edit. JoshuaZ 06:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

formalism and pointing out spelling errors

FYI, when discussing issues on talk pages, many wikipedians do not pay a lot of attention to grammar and speelng. Putting large bold comments correcting spelling errors on the talk page is unnecessary and disrupts the flow of what people are reading. It also looks slightly condescending. JoshuaZ 06:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

It would seem that many do not pay much attention while editing entries either, or they simply cannot write very well. But, you make my point exactly. Correction of typos and inconsistent editing are also considered "personal attacks" when irrational bias is such a huge factor in a discussion.

Please see my above comments. Editors did not (as far as I am aware) call your spelling and grammar corrections personal attacks, they were refering to your use of words like "illiterates" and "stupid." Again, you are welcome to communicate to me whatever spelin and grammar issues you have and I will attempt to fix them. JoshuaZ 06:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Great! Capitalize Bible and fix the dead link.

Capitalize Bible where and fix which dead link? You need to be more specific so I have soem diea what you are actually talking about. JoshuaZ 19:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)