User talk:PSRuckman/Archive

Link Please. Please. Pretty Please FSP Crew!

One external link that got lost along the way is a link to the Preface of KJV (http://www.ccel.org/bible/kjv/preface/pref1.htm) which, ironically, contradicts the central premise of Ruckmanism. Now, such a link is not nearly as innocuous as Arbustooooooo's major name recognition enhancement for the oddball "critic," but it says something of substance (to intelligent persons) about the topic of the entry. In addition, it should be noted that details of PBI graduates are "sketchy" because Arbustoooo insists that it is that way. He will allow no links to the hundreds of graduates from the Institute all over the world. And all of the FSPs said "Amen, brother!" PSRuckman

It would help if you explained what you were talking about. You want what specific links where to do what? Remember, if you have too much trouble editing the page, feel free to do so yourself as long as you don't edit war. JoshuaZ 03:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh no. This again. OK. One more time. Slow. No repeats. There is a link section at the bottom of the page for Peter Ruckman. Maybe we shoud consider adding (bringing back) a link there to the Preface of KJV (http://www.ccel.org/bible/kjv/preface/pref1.htm - or any of several hundred other places). The link is relevent because Ruckman is a KJV-onlyist and the Preface contradicts his position. The link was there, but was removed during Arbustoooo's destruction/request for removal campaign. And, again, I repectfully decline to let FSPs edit war and then block me from the page for removing their typos and POV. PSRuckman

What a shame you seem so determined not to make the slightest attempt to engage in constructive dialogue. That is also at Wikisource, by the way here. The place to talk about the article, though, is on its Talk page. One more thing: what's the authority for this explicitly contradicting Ruckman? Just zis Guy you know? 23:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Lecture on constructive dialogue from you? Doubt it. "Authority?" The Preface directly contradicts the position of Ruckman - even as it is dimly presented on the entry. One has only to read one, then the other. No complexity here. 172.149.188.59

"Read one then read the other" is what we call original research. This is supposed ot be an encyclopaedia, and by policy if we want to say that the preface to the KJV explicitly contradicts Ruckman (which I would agree it seems to do) we need a report in a reliable source which says so. A link would be much appreciated. Just zis Guy you know? 22:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• Yaaaawwwwnnn. See http://www.dbts.edu/dbts/journals/1996_2/Preface.pdf If you want 5 or 6 more let me know. Will only take a minute or two. PSRuckman

This seems to be sufficient. JoshuaZ 23:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

It's like pulling teeth, isn't it? Finally after several days of snide remarks and other nonsense we get the information which could have been provided with a quick link to the relevant Talk page. I'm sure we have a policy somewhere on being disruptive just to make a point... Just zis Guy you know? 23:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, I note your sarcasm and lack of civility. What a shame. A link to the Preface was posted days ago, but you contributed nothing to this particular section but disruptive commentary. When you finally asked for the same information in a different (less impressive) form. You got it, instantly. Not content, you carry on with the insults. Still looking for the link BTW. PSRuckman

Yes, and a link to the preface was not sufficient. A link to an article making the claim is. Things would go much faster if you read the relevant wikipedia guidelines and policies. JoshuaZ 03:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Still looking for the link, so things are not going much faster at all. Indeed, Arbustoo repeatedly reverted typos much faster. PSRuckman

I have dropped the link in. JoshuaZ 04:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

* Bravo! See comments on Kutilek at top of Peter Ruckman talk. 172.136.133.41

Reasoning with JzG/Arbustoo/JoshuaZ

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:

And I would hate for you to have to admit that you, too, made egregious errors like "correcting" perfectly valid British English spelling. Your continued nonsense about my poor typing (not spelling, I spell very accurately) - which I have already told you is due to an injury - shows you in a very poor light. Just zis Guy you know? 16:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know anything about you telling me about an injury. But, then again, you say a lot. You may have also said it to one of several people that you think are me. As for spelling, one minute you claim it is a joke to write well, another minute you claim that you have won the Super Bowl when you reduce your/my typo ratio from 1/10. PSRuckman

ONE The latest hilarity. The page now says, some "Ruckmanites" believe a person can only be saved using a KJV. First, that would disqualify them from being a "Ruckmanite" (Ruckman teaches nothing of the kind and believes a person can be saved with ANY translation). Indeed, he teaches just the exact opposite of what the statement suggests. It is clear the person who wrote the statemet intended to lampoon Ruckman. For this, I give them credit. Not very informative for readers, but amusing nonetheless. Where are all of the FSPs calling for a "source?"

This is the result of the decision of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruckmanism to merge and redirect. You could have voted "delete as uncited". Just zis Guy you know? 16:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Echo ... Where are all of the FSPs calling for a source? PSRuckman

TWO 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/JoshuaZ 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.

Correct. In some countries it is illegal to even to use the terminology "Dr." unless you have earned it from a properly accredited institution; in the USA I believe it's required that you make it clear that it is a religious degree, but that's based on my reading of other similar disputes in respect of other people with doctorates from unaccredited universities. He is less widely known as "Dr. Peter S. Ruckman" than I am as "Just zis Guy, you know?". The fact that he is also known as Dr. Peter S. Ruckman, to expand the abbreviation, is implicit in the fact that he claims a doctorate, which is noted in the article. Obsessive use of the title "Dr." appears to be routine among such people, Kent Hovind being a notable example. Just zis Guy you know? 16:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

In "some countries?" No comment. PSRuckman

Yes, for example, Australia has laws against it. JoshuaZ 03:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

As does Germany. Just zis Guy you know? 08:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

And if you want an example of part of the US, one has the state of Oregon. JoshuaZ 16:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

THREE The title of the entry is "Peter Ruckman," but JzG/Arbustoo/JoshuaZ have edited the article to begin "Peter S. Ruckman ..." Editing consistency in Wikipedia is, according to JzG/Arbustoo a "stylistic preference." This, of course, is a way of saying he demands consistency - or minimizes it - when it suits his bias (see commentary below). Meanwhile, JosuhuZ plays the same game. In commentary on this entry (below), JzG has written “There is no inconsistency in refering (sic) to him with his initial within the article and refering (sic) to him without it for the title.” But JoshuaZ edits out the similar information for this reason: "Adding Dr. to the image title is not matching it to the article title, the article title does not include this." As they both have the same goal, and their edits are in the same general direction, they never conflict with each other.

It is perfectly normal to have the article title use the common name and the article start with the full name. See Tony Blair. Also note that this is not stated as The Right Honourable Mr Anthony Charles Lynton Blair, PC, MP, just as Albert Einstein is not Dr. Albert Einstein. Although this is not entirely consistent throughout the project, it does seem that the obsessive use of the title Dr. is greatest among those whose rightful claim to it is most contentious. See Ian Paisley, who we do not describe as Dr. Ian Paisley although his party do. In Paisley's case we note the "also known as Dr...", but then, there are over 33,000 Google hits for that (and even then I don't think it's appropriate given that hid "doctorate" is not only from an unaccredited university, it's also honorary). So, obsession with the use of doctoral titles seems to me to vary in inverse proportion to the academic standing of the claimant. Just zis Guy you know? 20:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

If inconsistency is "normal" then the quality of the product speaks for itself. Stop boring me with the very corny "obsession" routine. It has the stinch of a poor defense. It also makes you look condescending and it will convince no one. PSRuckman

Feel free to go ahead and edit the Ian Paisley article if it bothers you so much. JoshuaZ 03:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

If you feel the "quality of the product" is poor, you are free to find some other encyclopaedia to edit. On Wikipedia you have precisely two rights: the right to fork and the right to leave. Just zis Guy you know? 08:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I think there might be another right floating around in a penumbra. The right to document the quality of users' work. PSRuckman

Nope, you have no such right. In fact, there are restrictions on the terms you may use to comment on others on Wikipedia (WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA). You can't be blocked for leaving, you can be blocked for incivility. Just zis Guy you know? 16:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

FOUR The entry previously noted something like ... "Ruckman is one of the most notable (if not the most famous) defender of the KJV-only position ... to intelligent (and informed) readers, it was a casual reference to a distinct possibility. Unable to resist himself, JoshuaZ edited out the reference with this as a justification: "no he is certainly not the most famous KJV onlyist." His example (note the singular) is Jack Chick (who has written a comic book with a character modeled after Ruckman). First, Chick is famous for comic books, not this position. Second, his books are more famous than he is. Third, Ruckman was doing the KJV-only gig 30 years before Chick ever even addressed the matter.

So you have a reliable source to substantiate his being the most notable KJV-onlyist? Or was your wording sloppy and you meant the person most notable for their KJV-onlyism? In which case no doubt you can cite a reliable source for that? Just zis Guy you know? 16:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

"Notable" (as defined by the FSPs) "Who we know, or learn of, and like"

Notable as in satisfying the relevant wikipedia guidelines, which I believe we have already mentioned to you.

Ruckman, you have already been told that describing other editors is considered incivility. Just zis Guy you know? 08:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

FIVE JzG/Arbustoo seem to think "Bible" should not be capitalized. JoushuaZ is looking into it. No. I am not making this up. Source for views possibly the same as source for point ONE (above).

As for point 3, Jack Chick is an easy example of a much more well known proponent of KJV-onlynism. As I pointed out in earlier, the issue in question for point 4 was whether bible as an adjective should be capitalized. (In fact there are very similar stylistic disagreements in other fields. For example, mathematicians disagree whether Artinian should be capitalized or not). It would be strongly appreciated if you didn't drastically modify/add material in between earlier comments and their replies. Other people may wish to be able to read this without paging through individual edits. JoshuaZ 04:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

That was even more unimpressive than I thought it would be. Jack Chick uses Ruckman as the character in one of his cartoon books! Ruckman would never even think to return the favor, as he was doing his gig 30 years before Chick even got near the fire. You are simply wrong. Chick is not famous for KJV-onlyism or defending it. He is famous for cartoon books, one of which deals with the topic. You need to do some homework. As for modifying, I will continue to keep the poor editing issue at the top of the talk page with my user name on it.

How is Chick using Ruckman as a character at all relevant to who is more well known? Anyways, the fact is that Chick is well known for other reasons as well, but Chick is still a much more well known individual and is thus a more well known KJV onlynist. (this may be a slightly semantic distinction, in that the original text did not say known solely for his KJV onlyist position). I would not object to an addition that described Ruckman as "one of the most well-known KJV-onlyists" or something similar. JoshuaZ 04:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• First, I am not even sure Chick is more well known. His comic books are well known, but I read 10 before I even knew who he was. It is kind of like saying Russell and Mary Firestone are well known because many people have heard of Firestone Tires. The Supreme Court has rejected that as poor logic, and I do too. Second, again, Chick is clearly not well-known for being a KJV-onlyist. And, if that was your best shot, then you certainly do not have 2-3 other people in mind. Thus, all of the "certainty" you spoke of when you made the edit was bogus. Third, it is not a "semantic distinction." Let's knock it down to where it is : "a semantic game."

Upon further thought, I have decided to add the word "prominent" to describe him in the KJV-only movement. This seems to be a reasonable summary. JoshuaZ 04:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

According to Google, Chick is approximately twenty times as well known as Peter Ruckman - and about 310 times better known than Dr. Peter Ruckman :-) Just zis Guy you know? 21:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Google is no point of reference. We have established that. Likewise, I am content to let you and the other FSPs have a conference of fame while I focuse on persons where are famous as defenders of the KJV. Keep knocking those heads. PSRuckman

No, as we already explained, google is not useful as a sole reference in of itself to establish notability of a term when the number of uses of the term is small. I thought we had already been over this. JoshuaZ 03:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Correct - it's just a rough and ready guide. In this case the fact that there are a couple of orders of magnitude difference in the hit counts is significant. Just zis Guy you know? 08:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, two points. First, this is exactly what I was talking about earlier about not substantially modifying a comment after it has been replied to. Your modification of point 3 makes this conversation very hard to follow. Now, as to your new points: First, your personal order of learning about Jack Chick is irrelevant, as is why people know about him. Second, I have no idea what you are talking about about the Supreme Court, so it might be helpful for you to explain. In any case, SCOTUS doesn't control Wikipedia, so I fail to see how their opinions matter for these purposes. Third, the certainty was in fact based on Jack Chick (who is far more well known than Ruckman). Fourth, a semantic game is simply what someone calls it when they don't like where the semantic leads. In any event, after some consideration of this matter I have decided that it wouldn't be unreasonable to call Ruckman "one of the most prominent defenders of the KJV-only movement" without the speculative claim about him possibly being the most well known. Note that I would very likely have come to this conclusion sooner if you hadn't spent so much time insulting me and other editors. JoshuaZ 17:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

As to your revised comment: the harm is very simple, calling everyone doctor when they have doctorates from just about anywhere diminishes the terms meaning and in general makes the term less precise.

• What a lovely POV. How is that relevant to how the man is known? Oh, it isn't at all. It is all about your POV.

That's why for example, Kent Hovind is just Kent Hovind, not Dr. Kent Hovind. Note also, that including an initial in the first use of the name in the article seems to be somewhat standard form. See again for example the Hovind article. JoshuaZ 19:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

* Nothing lost. Only a clear fact. Understand your lack of interest though. Funny how one has to defend a clear fact over and over with you. Let's turn it around: what do you think is the harm in assisting readers in precisely identifying the person? Second, if you don't know, I cannot explain it to you. Maybe speak with an editor. Third, can't help you any more. You blocked me from the page, remember?

Hmm, ok let me see. It identifies him precisely enough. (From JoshuaZ, PSRuckman please do not split other peoples comments up like that. It is considered slightly rude).

• 2,300 reasons to say you are wrong

It describes who he is and mentions his degree. Your comment regard to two seems to indicate a stylistic preference.

OMG. Editing consistency is a "stylistic preference." LOL!

Let me see if I understand, you think that any encylopedia entry about X should start out exactly with "X_" and not "X'_" Is thar accurate. As for three, um blocking shouldn't prevent you from quoting to me the relevant section. JoshuaZ 19:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

If you could explain what the consistency issue is please? There is no inconsistency in refering to him with his initial within the article and refering to him without it for the title. JoshuaZ 20:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• Ok, I will try. But this is really going to look stupid. I mean, I will really be insulting your sense of wisdom. But a person I really respect once wrote "Adding Dr. to the image title is not matching it to the article title, the article title does not include this." I know. I know. I can hardly believe you wrote it either. But that is the sort of integrity you bring to the table.

I don't recall saying this, and a quick check of this page and Ruckman talk page doesn't show me saying it. Could you point out where I said it? Thanks. JoshuaZ 20:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC) Ok, found it, you mean here: [1]. That was written by JzG, not me. JoshuaZ 21:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Alternative hypothesis: not everybody is as obsessive about capitalising the word as you are. Just zis Guy you know? 16:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I thought describing other editors is considered incivility. What a hoot. PSRuckman

SIX Arbusto/o has requested that Peter Ruckman be removed. To prop up his request, he has edited the page with numerous typos and very poor English. In addition, he edits out anything he does not like as POV, then smears his POV all over the page. Yes, he frequently edits the page he wants removed.

I see no evidence for POV smearing. Could you be more specific about what constitutes POV? In any case, there is nothing wrong with editing an article while one is also advocating its deletion. JoshuaZ 20:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• Anything "wrong" with requesting the removal of a page, then editing it with numerous typos and very poor English? Don't answer. I know you don't care. I'm pretending you are fair!

There is nothing wrong with requesting the removal of a page and then editing it. If some of those edits are not very good, that is unfortunate, but there is nothing intrinsically wrong about it. Please see Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith. JoshuaZ 20:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

It is normal to edit articles for neutrality, especially if their lack of neutrality has contributed to their being nominated for deletion. Just zis Guy you know? 16:57, 7 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). Correct British English spelling 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). Correct British English spelling (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)

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)

• 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)

* Wow! Concern for readers! There is a new twist. I can only offer another pesky fact. Sorry. Ruckman's position is that every (as in every single one - sound familiar?) after the KJV is faulty. That is, again, what was so misleading about the insertion of the NIV. But, again, stick to your cheer leading for the NIV, or the way you wish Ruckman believed. It's all about your POV anyway.

Of course there is concern for readers. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Again, it says "new translations such as the New International Version" which I fail to see as somehow cheerleading for it. I strongly doubt any reader is going to read the article and come away thinking that there is a specific issue with the NIV. If you want I'll put in another example. Would you prefer the New American Standard or the Revised Standard Version possibly as the example? JoshuaZ 21:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• Again. I cannot explain it any more clearly. If you listed 6 -14 examples, it would make no difference so far as representing the man's position. To list any example at all is misleading at best. Ruckman believes every translation since the KJV is inferior. I can't stop you from making up your own position, of course, and imposing it on readers, but that is his position. Functionally, what you have written has the sense of : "Presidents, such as John Tyler, have exercised the veto power."

Possibly I am not understanding something here. Are you a) claiming that people will come away from the article getting the impression that there is something special about the NIV? and/or b) claiming that anyone who comes to the page will already know what we mean by modern Bible versions? JoshuaZ 04:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

• I am so sorry. I can't say anything I have not already said 3 times. Ruckman takes the position that every (that would mean all, without exception, yes, that one too, and any other you can think of) written after the King James is inferior. Neat thing is, you don't even have to quibble about what is "modern" and what is not. It is just another of several dozen irrelevancies that plague the minds of the people who edit this page. But, again, I am all for functional sockpuppeting and POV cheerleading for the NIV.

Ok, so if I understand, your argument is that since Ruckman disagrees with all non-KJ versions, we don't need to give an example of another version? JoshuaZ 05:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

* Not quite, but I will accept that. Sure. Yes. Get rid of all "examples."

I'm confused still then. Can you clarify your position?

Not a chance. First, because you did not sign your line (and we ALL know how crtical and important that is). See policy on this major issue. Two, four explanations is the limit for me on something so simple. PSRuckman

I apologize, I forgot to sign once. Forgetting to sign once is not a reason to then ignore what the person says (if you notice, I didn't ignore what you had to say even when I was asking you to sign in some fashion). Although while we are on that topic, a signature that includes the time of signing would still be prefered. JoshuaZ 03:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

To the contrary, the focus on signatures has been the most common defense/explanation used to address what has been said in this talk. PSRuckman

That's odd. glancing through this page it looks like it has come up five times or so in over 30 comments on this page, so it doesn't seem to be that common. And what do you mean anyways? common defense/explanation for what? Certainly not for the requests for you to be civil, or having anything to do with the discuss of the use of the title "Dr." So what do you mean? JoshuaZ 20:44, 11 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)

Since you have still not started signing your comments, I will repeat that request. Also, I suggest you read WP:SIG which discusses why it is wikipolicy to sign comments. JoshuaZ 06:43, 5 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)

Also please do not Americanise correct British English spellings :-) Just zis Guy you know? 09:18, 4 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 some idea what you are actually talking about. JoshuaZ 19:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• Will go slow ... on the page you have blocked me from editing ... Peter Ruckman ... Bible should be capitalized and the dead link you (or Arbustoo, you are the same to me) have created should be fixed.

Ok, I think I see what you are talking about. The use of "bible" in that context is an adjective, so I'm not sure it needs to be capitalized. I'll talk to some people who know more about style than I do and get back to it. As for the "dead link": do you mean that within the article to Christian Video Ministries? Having red links to things which do not yet have articles is quite common and is not something which needs to be fixed per se. Is there another link problem? JoshuaZ 20:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, internal links are always preferred to external ones. If CVM is significant it should have an article, if it is not then it arguably does not merit a link at all and on Wikipedia at least redlink ǂ dead link. Inline links in the main text should be internal, external links should generally be separated out at the bottom in line with common practice. And, Mr Ruckman, do remember to set your spillchucker to British English before you "correct" that. Just zis Guy you know? 09:28, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Also I don't know why you see Arbustoo and me as the same, but it is generally unproductive to lump a large number of editors together as a single entity, and in any case, telling them so generally will not incline them to be more cooperative. JoshuaZ 20:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Continuing on this topic, I am not JzG either. Furthermore, please note that I and Arbustoo voted differently on whether to delete Peter Ruckman. JoshuaZ 20:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not impressed. You have contributed nothing to the page except to parrot (sockpuppet) their "edits." Save the good cop / bad cop routine.

Sockpuppet does not mean what you think it means. Please look at WP:SOCK. JoshuaZ 04:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Following the lead of the people editing this page, it means anything I want it to mean. This is, after all, a stricty POV entry. So, far, I have not seen you edit a single thing that would suggest you are anything other than a functional sock puppet (FSP) for the other two. Arbustoo can write "no evidence of Ruckmanites" and you will not even question what in the world that means. Why? FSP.

You may be interested to know that there is already a term for a "functional sock puppet." The term is meatpuppet. If you had read WP:SOCK like I had recommended, you would have seen this. Incidentally, just because multiple editors disagree with you, doesn't make those editors meatpuppets/FSPs. If multiple people disagree with you, that might be a sign that you are wrong or don't understand the relevant policies. Incidentally, a google search for "Ruckmanite" turns up only 500 or so hits. So at best it is a rarely used term. If you disagree with Arbustoo's edit, you are welcome to edit it back and provide a source. JoshuaZ 04:43, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Well, my goodness. I thought it more prudent to play by the rules and not edit the page because of my user name. It seems more handy to demonstrate the incompetence of the editing here. I don't like meatpuppet, so I did not use it. Functional Sockpuppet seems much more descriptive and accurate. A functional sockpuppet (FSP) mindlessly agrees with/allows/ignores patently ridiculous, inaccurate edits (perhaps because of an irrational POV). Thanks for your hypothesis, but it is equally clear tht "multiple" disagreements might just as well represent a groupthink mentality. And, when you look at how poor the justifications are for the edits, it is easy to conclude that is exactly what the case is. By the way, the really, really, really famous KJV-onlyist has a description of "Ruckmanites" on his web page. Where is the link to that? So, notice how even more silly and ridiculous Arbustoo's "no evidence of Ruckmanistes" justification was. On the other hand, you just sit there and do nothing. Why? FSP. Oh, and don't use google on me. 2,300 references to "Dr. Peter S. Ruckman" (quite a string!) meant nothing to you. Your integrity on that point is long gone.

I would thank you for your restraint in not editing directly, however your explanation in the Block section seems to slightly contradict your claimed motives here. Now as to other issues: first, your use of FSP is an example of why neologisms can be bad. The term is longer than meatpuppet, required an explanation, and if used without an explanation in other contexts may confuse the readers. Second, as I have already pointed out, given that there was for example, substantial disagreement between the "group" over whether or not the Peter Ruckman page should be deleted, a general claim of groupthink is pretty hard to sustain. Third of all, please understand the different uses of google. Google is sometimes necessary but not sufficient. A small number of google hits generally is considered to matter much more than a large number. That is, a topic can often be sunk or removed by having few google hits. However, many google hits are not by themselves impressive. Furthermore, if there are many google hits, that would be an argument to have a redirect from Dr. Peter S. Ruckman to the Peter Ruckman page. Feel free to construct it. Also note that 2300 is in fact not that many google hits for most purposes anyways. Finally, please note that attacking other editors integrity will not persuade them or other people of your correctness. JoshuaZ 17:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, 2,300 is a very small Google count - even I get over 3,400. Obsessive use of "Dr." in articles on holders of doctorates from unaccredited universities is something of a problem right now. It's almost as if they rely on the title to validate their significance. Just zis Guy you know? 17:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

* "Even I get over 3,400." I think I would like to not take your word for that. Send me the string that you typed in so I can do it too. It has four sets of letters, right? Or, are you comparing apples and oranges.

• Oh I used a fairly complicated search to exclude the other Guy Chapmans with a significant web presence (including a game designer and a New Zealand lawyer if I recall correctly). So here's a simple one: two terms, my name (quoted) and my usual nickname (also quoted): [2] - that's a narrower search, since it excludes the hits form the BMJ, BHRF, national newspapers and so on, so it only yields 3,320 hits. "Dr. Peter S. Ruckman" gets 883, by the way (you did remember to quote the name didn't you?). But I'm not the one claiming to be notable. Just zis Guy you know? 18:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

• Guy Chapman? Are you kidding me? Two strings - one a noun and the other a common name???VERY complex. I stand corrected, if you advance search Dr. Peter S. Ruckman as an exact phrase, you get 2,450. Guy Chapman! LOL

Ruckman, it would help matters immensely if you read the above again. If you look at what Guy is saying, he searched for "Guy Chapman" and his nickname. Both in quotation marks. This means it will only return pages which have "Guy Chapman" directly next to each other and have the nickname also present. Please familiarize yourself with how how google responds to requests and don't simply launch into unjustified attacks. JoshuaZ 17:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, keep in mind that Arbustoo didn't assert that the term didn't exist or wasn't used, merely that evidence was not provided in that draft of the article. JoshuaZ 21:08, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

* Also keep in mind that you can now revert and add the "evidence" ...a link to the really really really famous Jack Chick. lol PSRuckman

Block expired.

FYI, I believe that your block has expired. From your contribution list, it is not clear to me whether you are aware of this. JoshuaZ 04:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

• I am aware. Thanks. But I would rather disassociate myself from the very poor work on this page and openly glue it to the backs of you three. Besides, JzG has commanded that I shall not even so much as correct a typo or a libelous statement because of my user name ... or he will block me, and everyone with the same IP address again. The more I think of it, the more I like it that way.

I made the point because a) there are also other pages that you can edit and b) many aspects of this conversation would be more productive if they occured on the relevant talk pages. JoshuaZ 17:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• • You want cheese with that whine, Mr. Ruckman? I never said you would be blocked for editing the article, only if you insist on edit warring again. I did strongly advise you not to, for obvious reasons, but nobody has the least problem with you pointing out factual inaccuracies on the Talk page. Just zis Guy you know? 17:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• • You might say, I have learned from the best. Extract all of your whining from the above text and there wouldn't be much left, would there? I have no desire to have my correction of typos and very poor writing edit-warred by you and the fellow FSP's. The very stupid repitition that once appeared in the first and third sentences was edit-warred/reverted (whatever) five or six times. I corrected it and the FSP reverted it back over and over and over. You said nothing. And did nothing. It occurred to me to whine and point the "edit war" finger first, but I overestimated the integrity of the format. PSRuckman

First, I'd like to Thank you for signing your comments, albeit in a non-standard way. Now, a few points: first, you have much less of a chance being reverted if 1) an edit only contains corrections of spelling errors and grammar, and that the edit explicitly says so 2) if you don't insult other editors. Once an editor has engaged in insults and made possibly POV edits, many editors respond by reverting edits completely, rather than going through and checking every part of the edit. This is a response which is reinforced by the large number of POV editors/vandals on certain topics. Second, I fail to see where JzG enaging in any type of behavior that would constitute whining. Do you have a specific example? Third, please understand that people do not always get involved in every edit of a page even if they have made comments or taken other actions at the page. For example, I have had some minor presence on Astrology but have not bothered fighting over every edit there with which I disagree. JoshuaZ 19:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Please do not drastically modify comments after they have been responded to.

In this edit: [3] you have made the top section of your talk page close to impossible to read, since the responses don't make much sense in the new contexts and numbering. If you need to add a new issue, add it at the bottom or make a new section. Please bear in mind that other people need to be able to follow this conversation also. Thank you. JoshuaZ 17:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Warning

Calling other editors "functional sockpuppets" is a breach of WP:CIVIL and amounts to an allegation of being a meatpuppet. If you repeat this accusation you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Your actions are in any case counterproductive, since they almost guarantee that anything you say will be discounted. Civil comments on the relevant Talk page are far more likely to achieve results. Just zis Guy you know? 00:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Examples of your civil participation (above): "Your continued nonsense about my poor typing (not spelling, I spell very accurately) ... not everybody is as obsessive about capitalising the word as you are ... 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 ... You want cheese with that whine, Mr. Ruckman?" Better issue a warning to yourself, huh? PSRuckman

• Having carefully read the description of a meatpuppet, it is clear that it is no way related to any term that I have used. But I well understand that I cannot prevent you from further misrepresentation. If there is anything clear at this point, it is that the POV that drives the editing of the entry in question discounts contrary commentary (and has from the beginning) regardless of whether or not it is civil, or dealing with things as mundane as typos and poor writing. Hence, you sat back and let Arbustoo edit war repetition and did no blocking and made no threats. PSRuckman

I'm slightly confused. Earlier you said after I told you that what you called an FSP was the term for a meatpuppet that "I don't like meatpuppet, so I did not use it. Functional Sockpuppet seems much more descriptive and accurate. " Now you are claiming that FSP is not a synonym for meatpuppet? JoshuaZ 05:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Not even close. PSRuckman

So what am I missing here? JoshuaZ 05:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

So sorry. Can't provide the usual string of explanations. Wiwki defines meatpuppet as follows: "A related issue occurs when non-Wikipedians create new accounts specifically to influence a particular vote or discussion. This is especially common in deletion discussions. These newly created accounts (or anonymous edits) may be friends of a Wikipedian, or may be related in some way to the subject of an article under discussion." Nothing I have said or commented on has anything to do with this. I safely assume JzG well understands that. PSRuckman

Could you maybe then do us the favor of defining FSP for us? JoshuaZ 05:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Your term "FSP" is indistinguishable from the commonly understood definition of meatpuppet, i.e. a separate person who follows another editor editing in the same way and pushing the same POV. Meatpuppets are much in evidence in the case of Jason Gastrich - it is not disputed that many of these are separate people, but their behaviour is such that they may safely be considered as one. It is very clear that the people against whom you are making this allegation have entirely different edit histories and interests, albeit with a small overlap. Just zis Guy you know? 11:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, I cannot stop you from misrepresentation. As I understand the rules, you are in violation for calling participants in the case of Gastrich "meatpuppets." See commentary on civility and the exlicit command, "Do not call these users meatpuppets. Be civil." I would appreciate it if you would please block yourself for a bit. PSRuckman

Up to a point, Lord Copper. Gastrich was entirely open about recruiting meatpuppets and at least one of them had already established a reputation on Usenet as such. Gastrich also used sockpuppets, denied it for a while, was found out, and was then defiant about it. Which is why ArbCom look like giving him an enforced Wikibreak. And he was extremely disruptive. As are many of the legions of the faithful who spend their time whitewashing Southern Baptists and their unaccredited schools, really. Just zis Guy you know? 18:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I accept your apology and sense the continued lack of civility in your tone (when does it ever end?) Can't really speak to the Southern Baptist thing, as I am a Methodist. Nor is Peter Ruckman a Southern Baptist for that matter, but I understand your tendency to blindly guess about such things. I just don't see smearing, blocking and banning as beng any more honorable than whitewashing. If I had edited this page it would be much more objective and informative than it is. PSRuckman

That is one interpretation of what I said. A curious one, at odds with many documented facts and apparently at odds with the general community view of me, but an interpretation nonetheless. It's a hard life being a rouge admin. Just zis Guy you know? 22:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Yep. There is a world of variance in the interpretation of language like "spend their time whitewashing Southern Baptists." Very complex stuff.PSRuckman

There is plenty of evidence of people doing precisely that. For example, removing cited evidence of bankruptcy and other shenanigans. But like I said, it's tough being a rouge admin. Just zis Guy you know? 22:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I am all for you being more happy if you feel someone somewhere considers you a "rouge." Whatever works for you, dude. Live and let live. PSRuckman