User talk:Ryorkwestbr97

Hello, I'm Always forever. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Andersonville Theological Seminary, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. always forever (talk) 21:02, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Andersonville Theological Seminary, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. always forever (talk) 21:06, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ATS has been chartered by the State of Georgia as a non-profit Christian seminary and has been approved by the Georgia Non-public Postsecondary Education Commission. I do not know how to do the coding to cite the source. However in Georgia, seminaries may legally provide postsecondary education when approved by the State. The accreditation statement is misleading. The provisions can be found at https://gnpec.georgia.gov/ss-20-3-2503-educational-institutions-exempted-application-part (see #6) when you go to this page. I am asking for your assistance in correcting the record. I do not work for the University, I am trying to correct a record. Ryorkwestbr97 (talk) 21:42, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just read the article "Is My School Properly Accredited?" referenced in the description on Wik, and it does not mention Andersonville. The other source for the unaccredited statement listed as #3 and is the school itself. Of course the school never said that. I know you are busy, and I don't want to be accused of warring, and most of all I know you are a professional editor sooo could you please take a look at this. Hopefully you will approve that unaccredited caption being removed, or just take the school info off wik because that article is not a source for the statement being made. I just want the school to be represented fairly because I know the administrators and many graduates. Please, please take a look. Let me know what you think, I'm also working with AndytheGrump. Thanks Ryorkwestbr97 (talk) 18:28, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Creating an account to edit-war unsourced and improperly-sourced promotional content into an article is inadvisable. I suggest you read the following, and then discuss the matter on the article talk page:

Wikipedia:Reliable sources Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

Wikipedia is not a provider of free advertising space. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:08, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ATS has been chartered by the State of Georgia as a non-profit Christian seminary and has been approved by the Georgia Non-public Postsecondary Education Commission. I do not know how to do the coding to cite the source. However in Georgia, seminaries may legally provide postsecondary education when approved by the State. The accreditation statement is misleading. The provisions can be found at https://gnpec.georgia.gov/ss-20-3-2503-educational-institutions-exempted-application-part (see #6) when you go to this page. I am asking for your assistance in correcting the record. I do not work for the University, I am trying to correct a record. Ryorkwestbr97 (talk) 21:41, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is entirely possible that Georgia law permits seminaries to provide postsecondary education. Wikipedia policy however requires that content be sourced. In the case of a claim like this, to a third-party source meeting Wikipedia reliability criteria, which directly supports the assertion being made. Not vague assertions regarding web pages that don't name the subject of the article, and which make no statement whatsoever about 'accreditation' for any institution. Or to support the assertion that the state of Georgia 'Charters' any such institutions for that matter.

You also provide no source for the supposed 'campus'. And I note that according to Google Maps (admittedly not always to be trusted) there is nothing remotely resembling a university campus at the address given. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:01, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Consider this a final warning. Stop trying to edit-war the disputed content in. The only reason I have yet to report your violation of

WP:3RR guidelines so far is because you appeared to be willing to discuss the matter. Add it again and I will report you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:08, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Have you considered that the original source material provided by the original articles are simply opinions unsubstantiated by fact. Does a source written based on conjecture count? This is not a matter of edit/war, I don't know what that means. I'm providing a legal concern whereas the original posts are providing opinions and conjecture. I think that the entire entry should be removed if the original source is incorrect, conjecture or opinion. Ryorkwestbr97 (talk) 08:31, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you mean by 'legal concern'. You added a statement to the article asserting that the seminary was 'chartered by the State of Georgia'. You have provided no source to substantiate that. Or even one indicating what 'chartered by the State of Georgia' is supposed to mean. Likewise, no source has been provided which substantiates any claims that the seminary is accredited. There are no 'legal concerns' regarding the removal of unsubstantiated claims.

As for 'conjecture or opinion' in the article, there certainly seemed to be a fair bit of it in the article at one point, before the promotional fluff was removed. If there is specific content you have an issue with, we can of course discuss it - on the article talk page, not here, since that is the proper place to do so. Such discussions will need to be backed up with relevant sources directly supporting any proposed new content. If a reliable third-party source can be provided which directly supports the claims that the seminary is accredited by a relevant recognised accrediting agency we will of course amend the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:27, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, I just read the article "Is My School Properly Accredited?" referenced in the description on Wik, and it does not mention Andersonville. The other source for the unaccredited statement listed as #3 and is the school itself. Of course the school never said that. I know you are busy, and I don't want to be accused of warring, and most of all I know you are a professional editor sooo could you please take a look at this. Hopefully you will approve that unaccredited caption being removed, or just take the school info off wik because that article is not a source for the statement being made. I just want the school to be represented fairly because I know the administrators and many graduates. Please, please take a look. Let me know what you think. Thanks Ryorkwestbr97 (talk) 18:18, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From the source cited for 'unaccredited' (now offline, but archived here: [1]) Upon completion of the program, the student earns both a Master of Ministry in Christian Counseling degree from ATS and faith-based licensure through the NCCA as a Licensed Clinical Pastoral Counselor. This faith-based licensure is not to be confused with state-based licensure. Not strictly speaking a direct statement that the seminary is unaccredited, but I think it is fair to say it amounts to much the same thing. Or if it didn't, why would the seminary fail to inform prospective students that it offers qualifications recognised by authorised bodies, if it did? It seems keen to inform them that the 'National Christian Counselors Association' recognises it, though such 'recognition' seems dubious since the NCCA seems to exist only to enrol students into courses run by association members. As for "Is My School Properly Accredited?" not mentioning Andersonville, given that it is "Comprehensive List" of accredited colleges, rather than a list of unaccredited ones, what did you expect?

As for deleting the article, see the Wikipedia:Deletion policy. In brief, whether articles are liable to deletion or not depends on whether the subject has attracted sufficient coverage in independent sources. We don't generally delete articles because just because a contributor doesn't like them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:05, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I won't contact you again. At first, I was really appreciative and respected your technical focus about getting things right. I thought it was an admirable quality and I really wanted to learn how Wik worked, may be even help in other areas. You critiqued me for not naming a source, then not having a credible source that gave specific details about the school's position with the State. I didn't like it, but I respected it because you have been doing this work for a long time very successfully. But today, man I am really disappointed in your analysis, I can't believe it, not from you. You defend content and sources that completely omit the discussion found as a specific statement about the school on Wik. The source being use doesn't name the school but Wik used it to classify the school...You are so good at what you do, how can you let that pass? To be a source for the statement on Wik, the article should explicitly validate the wik findings with a statement not by omission but by factual evidence. This is what you said, this is what you suggested I find and I believed that when you said it. Now you have changed directions, if you reread the entire discussion between us you will see that its true. Forget the Wik statement, your compromising your standards is the worst part of this. It is you and people like you that make Wik accredited or creditable.

I think that its quite obvious that based on what you instructed me to do, taught me to understand, that whoever sanctioned this wik narrative did so without the proper review of source content. The list in the article is not exhaustive nor could it be accreditation is a moving target. Most importantly this is not a statement that names unaccredited institutions, and yet wik makes a statement about a school by its omission from this article? This article does not even appropriately list the campuses for the University of Houston, nor does it list the Dallas Theological Seminary which is accredited by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges, to name a few errors. The article is not exhaustive at all. That's not empirical research, nor the proper way to validate content, nor a true source of information. BTW, the archive data you presented, has nothing to do with accreditation, it is discussing ministerial licensing to perform services. Ministerial licensing is a separate matter all altogether from the accreditation of the school.

In any case, thanks for the time you spent reviewing the matter. If you'd like to delete our discussion so that no one sees this mistake please do so, because everything else you've done has been stellar. I won't contact you again. Ryorkwestbr97 (talk) 19:54, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Andersonville Theological Seminary. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:07, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:13, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action.

You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 17:18, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]