User talk:24*

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! - (moving this over here - thanks for registering a user name)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Talk:Peter Ruckman
Regarding your edits at Talk:Peter Ruckman, please read our policy on personal attacks and civility. There is no need to insult people in the course of discussing subject matter content. If you have a point to make, then make it. If you choose, instead, to insult people, you come across as if you don't have any real point to make.

Civility is important to the functioning of the project. If you choose to continue this sort of behaviour, you can be blocked from editing the site. Guettarda 23:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I note you make no specific reference to anything I wrote, but give instead a broad accusation against my comments along with a threat. The generalization makes it appear that you have no real point to make, and the threat could be considered uncivil. If you actually take issue with anything I have written in particular, I'd be happy to discuss it's deletion. But don't use accusations of incivility to protect an admin's pet POV. 24* 23 March 2006

All of the following: either violate policy or skirt closely enough to violating policy that, taken together, they could be used to justify blocking you. You would do well to stop using language and terminology like that. Guettarda 00:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Stop whining like a little baby about my comments
 * A*-o's evidently got a generalized paranoia
 * A*-o is an antiruckman crusader who's POV is causing him to angst whenever the article is modified to included unbiased information.

Ok, you quoted some of my edits. Now explain. The way I see comment #1 it is descriptive of how I was being attacked. Note "like a" - he was not called a baby, just that his comments were wining like one. This fair. 2 The generalized fear of PO boxes is indeed relevant to arbusto's attacks against unaccredited schools. Check him out. 3 Is "antiruckman crusader" not permitted? I see a POV. When is it impolite to point out the POV? THe POV stinks and I'm sorry to be the one to change the diapers here, but that is exactly what is going on and discussion of it is needful. Now, why are you threatening me again? If the comments "skirt" the policy then they don't violate it and you should take back your threats. 24* 23 March 2006

Can move discussion to "24*" - By the way, I've edited all my comments just for you Guettarda, hope it's appreciated. 24*


 * Thank you for doing so.
 * The problem with the comments is that they are personal in nature. To tell someone "stop whining like a little baby" is belittling.  It's a personal comment.  While people might tolerate a "stop whining", even that is language you should steer clear of.  "Whining like a little baby" adds name calling - the "like a" is hair-splitting - the person feels like s/he is being called "a little baby" or is being told "you are acting like a little baby".  These are the kind of things people take personally, and they do not build a collegial atmosphere.  This is a volunteer project, people donate huge amounts of time.  It's our responsibility to respect the commitment of people who are working for the good of the project and to give them as collegial an atmosphere as possible.
 * Calling someone's actions "paranoia" is, again, attacking who they are rather than what they do. Talk about a person's edits, not about a person's state of mind.  Calling someone "paranoid" is to say they have a mental illness.  Definitely a comment on the person, not on his work.
 * Again, calling someone an "antiruckman crusader" is making assumptions about their state of mind. Apart from assigning motive (which isn't a good idea), it also doesn't accurately reflect Arbusto's contribution here - while he seems to have a focus on diploma mills, his edits to Ruckman and PBI consitute a tiny proportion of his edits.  Support your position with references from reputable sources, question someone else's sources, but don't attack the person.
 * As for the comments about skirting policy versus breaking it - that isn't the way things work here. Policy exists because it reflects the opinion of the community as to how to do thing, it isn't a set of rules to hem us in.  Violating the spirit of the rules without actually breaking the letter of the law is as bad as breaking the letter of the law.  So, while people could argue about whether or not your comments violate the rules on personal attacks, the fact that there are many of them would be enough for some people to act.  That said, most people are willing to give some leeway to new users.  If you choose to become more polite and collegial, most people will forgive your early incivility.  If you choose to continue along this path, you will be seen as disruptive and probably won't last here all that long.  More importantly, if you are seen as disruptive, people will find it easier to ignore you, or to dismiss your comments on the basis of your other actions.  I realise that position is a little hypocritical, but that's the way it works.  We are all volunteers here.  If you adhere to what the community considers to be acceptable behaviour, you will be accepted.  If you choose to disregard the norms you will either be ignored or banned (if your behaviour is egregious enough).  Regardless, you won't be very successful here.
 * Please don't take my comments as a threat. They are a warning, a 'heads up' about how things work around here.  But while I am very slow to block for things like that - there are other people who are much less tolerant.  Guettarda 13:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Warning
Your coments on Talk:Peter Ruckman are unhelpful, and your accusations against other editors lack civility. Both Arbustoo and JoshuaZ have established reputations as trustworthy editors, and JoshuaZ in particular is trying hard to salvage a good article from the mass of competing points of view of Ruckman (most of which are, it must be said, uncomplimentary, somethigng which the article is bound to reflect per WP:NPOV). You will achieve more by being more co-operative and less confrontational. What you will achieve by cotinuing to attack Joshua is your being blocked from editing Wikipedia. Which will help neither you nor the article. Joshua is doing good work and showing commendable calm and humility. I will not see him attacked for this. Just zis Guy you know? 22:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I get the point. However I don't agree that the editors' work is good or commendable. I've edited back my comments. Nevertheless, the POV in the article still stinks. Can it be calmly edited into something nuetral and factual? I note that I got involved in this whole thing when I read a line in this supposedly neutral article that called Dr. Ruckman a "Jew-loving mongrel" at the same time those editors you commend where busy editing it. They actually reverted those comments back into the article and got all hot and bothered in the discussion section at the reaction they illicited. Therefore I find it less than amusing that cries of "civility" (defined with utmost sensitivity) seem much more important than the tenant of "Nuetrality." This article needs its antiruckman POV removed. It is "uncivil" to the subject of the article to allow him to be maligned and belittled by "volunteers" who  (although we cannot read minds) apear to have an ax to grind. I'm glad the antisemetic nonesense has been removed, and I'll be happerier still when the article has nothing but the nuetral facts. 24* 01:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I have nothing against neutrality, obviously. Unfortunately the version of neutrality preferred  by a large number of supporters of unaccredited Southern Baptist colleges appears to include avoiding all mention of lack of accreditation, any controversies or other criticisms.  So there is a history of problems with articles like this, and there is therefore some scepticism over edits which mask problems with such schools - you should be aware fo this and ensure that changes you make are supported by good edit summaries and comments on Talk.  You are welcome to strive to make it a good article of course.  I commend you for remaining calm, thank you. Just zis Guy you know? 10:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)