Talk:West Ridge Academy/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Was Buttars the director for Norwood or not

User:DoyleCB made an interesting interesting edit today. The edit deleted the statement that while Eric Norwood was a student at the Academy, it was "while it was under the direction of Buttars". There are some glaring errors:

• First, he accused me as follow: "Storm Rider, please remove yourself as an editor if you are going to be so unapologetically biased with your edits". Since I did not make the edit, I am surprised he wanted to accuse me of being biased. The edit was actually made by Descartes here. Doyle, do you think that Descartes is "unapologetically biased" or not. Please tell us.
• Second, how is stating that Buttars was the director of the school when Norwood was a student biased? Was Buttars the director or not? Given Mr. Norwood's rather scandalous accusations, it would seem appropriate to state not only who the director was, but also when Norwood was a student.
• Third, to accuse someone of bias is done all the time, but it usually occurs when something has been stated that is biased. Descartes' edit is hardly biased, of course, Doyle, you could just be wrong and extremely biased yourself. Have you considered that you might need to step back from the article for a longer period to allow yourself a time to get your bearings? Just something to think about; if you continue down this path you are only going to end up getting blocked again.

As an aside, when a statement that is marked that citations are needed, we wait as long as two months before deleting it. When you remove such a statement as you did here, it is counter-productive. I re-added it after finding three references. Cheers. --^StormRider 18:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Storm, I will continue to report you for your abuse on this page. The rest of your comments are ridiculous. I can't even address them, they are so bizarre and out of left field. Please, please, please review WP:Bully (BTW, I like the references and the edit. I also maintain that the facility maintains it is nondenominational! Cheers! --DoyleCB (talk) 20:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem, make it fun. When you make editing anything less, it takes away from what Wikipedia is meant to be. Please report away when you see abuse, I know that I will not ever back down from reporting abuse of our policies. The blocks will be longer in the future, rather than just 24 hours, so don't stop now. I will also warn you that issuing warnings, falsely accusing others of wrongs not committed, will also get you blocked. The moral to this and how not be blocked again, treat everyone else like you want to be treated. I am going to have a blast and I am already smiling.

Oh, almost forgot, so is User:Descartes biased or not? I didn't see your answer. Cheers. --^StormRider 20:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

You are a very scary person Storm Rider. Please stop harassing me and abusing wikipedia's editing and reporting process. Like I said earlier, I have no idea what that "list" of comments above is supposed to mean or who it is directed to. I asked you to stop editing because the article gets substantially worse and more of a promotional website than anything else. No doubt you think it is a great place, but the overwhelming majority of people on the Internet do not agree with you or the tone of this article. I made the edits regarding Norwood because I feel that if you actually read the reference, it says nothing about a time frame for abuse. That appears to be the goal of Doon Ray - the West Ridge Authorized sock puppet - and Storm Rider, to preface any accusation of abuse with a statement beneficial to the "Academy." I hope you enjoyed it. --DoyleCB (talk) 20:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Starting all over again? This is outrageous

Are we really going to start over again? We seemed to get to an agreed point until DoyleCB returned and performed massive edits once again, reversing numerous consensus items and edits. Review the history from today when edit rights were reinstated. This is absolutely crazy. What do we have to do to stop the circular editing. The edits had ceased and the war had ceased without DoyleCB involved. Now, we have to start all over since most of the material argument points have been messed with, edited and hammered on. Storm/Descartes etc., - is there a way to simply shut this topic down as too controversial for posting? This has got to grind on Wiki as a waste of meaningful edit time to continue to edit the SAME issues over and over due to POV problems. DoonRay (talk) 23:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Outrage!

Doon Ray, you are [User:WestRidgeAuthorized] and, as you have a very unambiguous conflict of interest, I don't find your suggested edits very helpful or productive. If you have a specific grievance regarding an edit, please bring it here for discussion. That would be a much more of a productive step than feigning outrage and relying on the Mormon editors to impose censorship. --DoyleCB (talk) 00:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Doon Ray was forced to give up his name of "WestRidgeAuthorized", I don't think you are doing anything by demonstrating you simply were not aware of it and attempting to make it look as if Doon was using a sock. Please just read his talk page. Please assume good faith of other editors.

Your edits are not contructive. They are POV and deceitful. I have reverted them with the objective of bringing desire to seek consensus here on the dicussion page. --^StormRider 00:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I have been nothing but on top of the table, honest about intent, POV and COI. I have not made destructive or mass edits as were witnessed today. I have brought all of my concerns to the table here in discussion. I have voted where appropriate. I would prefer you to continue to attack me personally than to continue outrageous POV/COI edits. It is less work to defend me than to fight the silly edit war that only one of us is creating. Go ahead and be outraged. It only goes to further evidence of your COI. I am personally tired of re-doing the same arguments, same edit concerns, same issues. Many have been solved, then reversed or changed after resolution. This feels like a blog, not a public neutral encyclopedia. DoonRay (talk) 01:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

This is laughable and is a perfect example of ignorance in action. Doyle added a fact request today, where references were already added and he was aware and he admits knowing it on the talk page prior to making the request. Not productive, not interested in improving the article, and only interested in edit wars.

To top it off he accuses you of being a sock puppet; as if your new name was a clandestine action. When in reality you were requested to change your name and all he had to do was read your talk page. I am having so much fun with this. I can't wait to see how this unfolds. I am glad Doyle said he was not educated at the Academy and had no relationship or it would force to a very negative conclusion about its educational quality indeed. And just think, he has been editing Wikipedia since 2002. Yup, truth is popping up all over the place here. I have some ocean front property to sale; any takers? --^StormRider 03:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

What a class act you are, Storm. Wow. Keep up the harassment, it is all being documented and reported. Like I said, I chose not to interact with you or any other editors that are behaving abusively. --DoyleCB (talk) 03:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

You have no idea. Yes, they are being documented and watched. Please continue because this is only going to get better. Cheers and happy editing. --^StormRider 04:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Move to Voting Structure Proposal

Given the emotional volatility that appears to be consistent and the amount of mass editing that takes place while ignorning historical discusion and edits - I move that changes to the article only are alowed after consensus/voting. I hate this method, but you must each agree that after days of discussion, bulk revisions of today only prove that some editors are not capable of editing within guidelines making the rest of us rework the article over and over for items already discussed and resolved. Though I am amazed that even though we had voting consensus above, even those edits are not currently in place. Thoughts/Votes? DoonRay (talk) 01:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I've not been following things for the past few days. Doon, am I correct that you have already voluntarily recused yourself from editing the article directly due to your COI, and that Doyle is the main source of problematic editing? If that is the case, I would suggest that the solution is not such a restrictive system, but to get Doyle under control. TallNapoleon (talk) 03:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Tall, I know your time is valuable and there are certainly more enjoyable things to do, but your continued editing of this article would really be appreciated. What is needed is a broad range of positions that work together to produce a great article. This is not a complicated topic and working together should not be so difficult. I also agree that Doon should not feel restricted from editing the article. For goodness sake, it is evident that no one else does that has a strong POV. Tall, you have been able to work with Doyle in the past and have been able to echo some of his positions; any chance of you attempting to coach him on how Wikipedia works and the concept of consensus? I don't have a working relationship with him (obviously) and I am not hopeful that there ever will be, but I am open to it. What I will not allow is one editor to run roughshod on everyone else and a neutral article.

Curious, how do you feel about the voting discussion above? I don't like it, wish that it could be different, but I think I have concluded that it might be the only way to move forward. Of course, we could seek mediation. The problem is no strategy works unless all parties are interested in working together and each understands the definition of neutral. Thoughts? --^StormRider 04:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

List of problems

Certain editors (who I believe have an agenda) are making wild accusations about me being problematic, etc. I believe this is strictly due to a different perspective being presented, one that is not held by two or three other editors participating. If I am wrong, please advise here what information presented is disruptive, problematic, out of control, etc. The information being provided here is helpful, and with the exception of a few things I am happy with the article. Thanks--DoyleCB (talk) 03:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Different perspectives are fine, but they are worked out on the talk page. A number of editors had worked to make the article stable and NPOV. Then, you came back and changed a number of things without discussion and consensus on the talk page first. If you want to make a change to the established version, discuss it here first and work towards a consensus. Alanraywiki (talk) 04:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Alanray, the established version was established while I was banned and had no say in the matter. Furthermore, the banning (along with other abuses) was contested and has been reported to the admins. Can you provide a list for me, per the question above? I'd really like to know what edits I have made or proposed that fit the allegations or criteria of disruptive, etc... --DoyleCB (talk) 04:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

You were the only editor that does not agree with the edits. As far as disruptive edits, here are some examples:

Here, the entity is licensed and therefore, per the Utah agency, is reviewed annually and inspected periodically.

Here, adding a fact tag when the nondenominational approach was already addressed in the last sentence with a reference from the Utah State Office of Education

Here, was it published on the Internet or in a publication? Unclear reason for removing.

Here, is this incorrect? It gives a clearer background on person and their experience.

Here, removing content with a fact tag after only a day or two.

Here, a big change from established wording.

There may be others, but these frequent controversial changes from an stable article should be discussed before posting to article. Alanraywiki (talk) 05:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't find any of those edits to be disruptive. At least any more disruptive than any other edits made here. But I haven't had the time to waste on this article yet. One can only dream of having the free time Storm Rider has to spend on this article .... I did remove the college bound link after finding out that it was a pay to advertise site. I hope no one here goes into cardiac arrest over it. --DoyleCB (talk) 18:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is the email I received from College Bound:

The CollegeBound Network specializes in CPL lead generation/student recruitment (circa 1987). If you're not familiar, CPL – Cost Per Lead Advertising is a targeted, cost-effective advertising model that connects you with the students you're seeking. We have been identifying and supplying qualified applicants via our numerous education related web sites and portal for schools just like yours around the world. The applicants we generate and provide to you have expressed a specific interest in your school and have even taken the next step by completing your customized admission information form indicating that they meet all of your requirements for enrollment. This is the most cost effective, targeted form of advertising because it's 100% measurable and you only pay for results. To begin, please take a look at a few links to some of our flagship portals: http://www.collegebound.net/boarding-schools/

http://www.boardingschoolhelp.com/ In addition, please view our corporate B-2-B site ( http://www.collegebound.net/corporate/ ) to learn more about CollegeBound Network and how we can cost effectively help Southern Academy enroll more students. I've also included testimonials to share with you to show you why we are the best (because we deliver results)! Benefits of being a school partner: It's a Cost Per Lead Program, so you're only paying for "Qualified Results" There's no set up/design fees associated with our program Contracts/Agreements are open ended (you can cancel at anytime) Qualified leads are sent in real-time (with a variety of delivery options), so you can follow up with prospects and begin the conversion process immediately. Leads are confidential/exclusive (we will not share them with any other schools and they will never be re-sold) to yield optimal results. Leads received can be geo-targeted (i.e. Zip Code, Mile Radius, Regionally, Nationally) to target your best student prospects. You'll have access to our lead management tool (R3). This enables you to view your leads 24/7, set up auto response e-mails, create customized reports/graphs etc... …to further aid you in the conversion process. Monthly Statistics & Highlights: 3,000,000+ student visitors to CollegeBound lead generation portals every month means great additional exposure for your school. Typical Traffic to a School's Profile is 3,000 Visits We have over 5,000,000 words under bid management with all of the major search engines (i.e. Google, Yahoo, MSN) so you have the greatest chance to get your educational institution seen by the right audience. Our 1000+ school partners (over 4,000 campuses) average 5%+ lead to enrollment ratio (results vary based on market/geo-target/etc). Last year, our services lead to producing over 50,000 school enrollments and over $1 billion in tuition for our educational partners. Danny, please review the links above @ your earliest convenience. If you have any questions or need additional information prior to hearing from me, please don’t hesitate to contact me anytime. I look forward to speaking with you soon. Best Regards, Judd Bergenfeld

JUDD BERGENFELD 1200 SOUTH AVENUE - SUITE 202 STATEN ISLAND, NY 10314 P: 718-761-4800X113 F: 718-761-3300 WWW.COLLEGEBOUND.NET

BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT MANAGER JBERGENFELD@COLLE

What is missing?

When I want to improve an article I look to see if the article adequately answers the five W's: Who, what, when, where, and why. Some of the questions that may need to be addressed in more depth are:

Who attends this school? Does this school only draw students from the Utah, is it regional, or nation wide.

Youth served are found Here DoonRay (talk) 18:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

What is the average time a student is there?

10-12 months (No reference available) DoonRay (talk) 18:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Is the program focused primarily on behavior modification?

No - "West Ridge Academy has a passion for helping young men and young women achieve change of heart through Principle-Centered Change." Citation for Clinical Model Here DoonRay (talk) 18:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

How stringent are the academic requirements?

Requirements for? DoonRay (talk) 18:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

After graduation, what is the normal course for students? How many go to college, etc?

Outcomes vary based on the critical success factors and each individual's work and family - see here DoonRay (talk) 18:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

What is the annual tuition?

Depends on a number of variables, insurances, etc. DoonRay (talk) 18:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Other thoughts are as follows:

The article continues to use the old name, It seems like what would be appropriate is that we introduce the current name of the Academy and the old name, but then from then on the proper name is used only.

The status of the lawsuit mentioned above needs to be clarified and corrected.

Some history about these types of schools are programs would be helpful. How many similar schools exist in the nation? Are all of them boarding schools? I assume that by their very nature, none of them are open campuses. I suspect that few of us have a grasp of this type of school and how it compares with the typical private school.

Thoughts? --^StormRider 16:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

A few places that might serve as a primer are NATSAP - West Ridge and most upstanding schools are a member of this national association of Therapeutic Schools and Programs. The other is the already cited [1]. DoonRay (talk) 18:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

How do other editors feel about adding these topics to the article? Should we move forward or wait? --^StormRider 02:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I think adding those topics will add helpful information about West Ridge Academy. I also think that History and Controversy should be separate sections. Alanraywiki (talk) 04:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree as long as we can keep the rest of things reasonably stable! - good call DoonRay (talk) 12:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Two Stated Purposes

The article currently says:

The academy states that it provides "quality clinical services, education, and experiences which promote spiritual awareness, personal accountability and change of heart."[3]

Currently the stated purpose of the West Ridge Academy is "to offer hope and healing to families" by establishing "new coping skills and moral and spiritual values that will propel them into a more functional and peaceful way of life."[5]

I propose removing the first stated purpose and leaving the second. There is no need for the redundancy. --DoyleCB (talk) 18:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for asking even though you did make the edit. Until you gain the confidence of others, you might want to go much slower. I see these two statements not as repetition, but as both standing as independent statements and both helping readers to understand more about the Academy. Instead of deleting statements, I think we need to be expanding them as we discussed above. Just a few of my thoughts.--^StormRider 22:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Wording change request

I don't like the wording of this sentence "West Ridge is governed by the Utah Department of Human Services." It is not governed by DHS, but licensed. DHS doesn't control the curriculum, treatment philosophy, etc other than ensuring that basic health and safety requirements are met. DHS does not control the finances, how much they charge, who they hire if they can pass a background check, etc. I'd go ahead and change it on most articles, but this one is so contested I decided to discuss it first. Suggested substitutions would be: licensed, inspected, has oversight, etc. ElphabaKathryn (talk) 05:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Good catch. These programs are licensed by DHS and DHS provides oversight to ensure compliance. DoonRay (talk) 20:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Please go ahead and make the change. These types of simple changes should be made without requesting input. It is when we think an edit will be controversial that an discussion is warranted. However, be BOLD, make the edit and if no one reverts than you know there is not a problem. On the other hand, should someone revert, don't take it personal, it means there is simply difference of opinion.

The article has been quiet of late and there are needed improvements as discussed above. We should all move forward and see if we can turn this into a good article. --^StormRider 22:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Blatant POV editing again.

Well it looks like we have the same blocked editor back or we have a new one that edits in the exact same manner. I suggest to the anon 66 that (s)he would be aided by reviewing history of this article to gain a better understanding of why their edits are either wrong or POV.

It does not help to put an error in the article and then place a fact tag with it. If you have a reference then add at the time, do not add that the school is Mormon and then ask for a reference. It does not exist. The school states it is nondenominational. That is the fact and that is why the article reflects that position.

The rest of your edits are just POV and are not worth going into. If you are serious you can bring them here and then we can discuss them and demonstrate how they might work or why they are not permissible. You might want to review Wikipedia polices on WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:V.

Oh, and issuing warnings inappropriately will also get you blocked along with vandalism and multiple reverts. --^StormRider 18:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, I don't doubt this user will end up blocked! Jeni ^(talk) 18:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to discuss the edits I've made here

--66.74.10.34 (talk) 17:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Newbie, but you have already been told your edits are not acceptable. You need to discuss them here to gain consensus and then they upon consensus they will be added. Your edits are POV and unacceptable and you have been reverted by two editors that have demonstrated their expertise, understanding of policies, and commitment to Wikipedia. --^StormRider 18:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

For the record -- Storm Rider is refusing to discuss edits. This is why this article is such an issue. One self-important editor takes control of the article and tries to dictate what can and cannot be said. --66.74.10.34 (talk) 18:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The record is evident; you have yet to bring any of your edits here to the discussion page after mulitple editors have made it clear that they are not acceptable. If you continue down this path will will be blocked and given your attitude, I expect it to be a permanent one...again. --^StormRider 19:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

West Ridge Academy is not a "therapeutic school"

It is a Residential Treatment Facility. The opening sentence of this article has a major fact wrong. This needs to be changed, asap.

Are you saying that it is not a therapeutic program? That statement comes directly from their site. When you say residential treatment facility, what do you mean? What is the difference between the two appellations?--^StormRider 17:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

They are a Residential Treatment facility, not a Therapeutic school. The Rules are different and can be found here: http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/code/r501/r501-19.htm

-- Bonnie Stuver --67.186.232.15 (talk) 05:37, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Reference 13, the Utah Department of Human Services, shows West Ridge Academy is licensed as a residential treatment facility (and outpatient and day treatment). I can see that term being changed based on the reliable source. Alanraywiki (talk) 05:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

So then when we quote how the school identifies itself it is incorrect? Are you saying the the professionals at the school don't know what they are talking about?-^StormRider 06:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The link to the rules above did not really help me understand the difference. Was there a specific section that identifies the difference between a residential treatment facility and a therapeutic school, or can an organization be both? Storm Rider already asked this but maybe some additional clarification on the difference can be given here. Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 14:37, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

For the editors who are determining consensus on this article, you sure aren't very well informed or willing to research what you're writing about. You could have found this link in two seconds via Google: http://www.hslic.utah.gov/db_results.asp?corp_name=west+ridge+academy&service=%25&SS=%25&county=%25&Submit=Search

--Bonnie --67.186.232.15 (talk) 16:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, a new editor that likes to judge; novel. Did you read the Academy's web site? It is both a residential and therapeutic program. It certainly is not just one or the other. The adolescents that attend are there for specific reasons and the therapeutic aspect is significant. The objective as stated on their website:

"...West Ridge Academy has been offering hope and healing to young men, young women and their families by providing quality clinical services, education, and experiences which promote spiritual awareness, personal accountability and change of heart."

Hope and healing comes through 1) quality clinical services (that is the therapy part), 2) education, 3) experiences that promote spirituality, personal accountability, and change. This is not rocket science and it is not difficult; just read their website. -^StormRider 19:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

It's really simple, as you pointed out. Why are you editing this article if you don't even know the basics?! If WRA was a TS, it would be licensed as such.

You are aware of the fact that Therapeutic Schools are licensed as such, aren't you? Please tell me that you at least know that. You shouldn't be editing this article if you aren't willing to research beyond the school's own website. Once again, I'll point you to WRA's license, which clearly states "RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT". GEESH! Bonnie -- --67.186.232.15 (talk) 19:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

http://www.hslic.utah.gov/db_results.asp?corp_name=west+ridge+academy&service=%25&SS=%25&county=%25&Submit=Search

This is what a Therapeutic School's license looks like: http://www.hslic.utah.gov/db_results.asp?corp_name=&county=%25&service=Therapeutic+School Please note how it says "Therapeutic School". I don't mind lazy research, but if you're claiming to be the consensus, you should at least check your facts. Again, two seconds on Google could have helped you avoid this mistake. Geesh! -- Bonnie --67.186.232.15 (talk) 19:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure this is a worthwhile discussion. You seemed to have a close mind, incapable of reading. What is a process based upon therapy called? Oh, that's right THERAPEUTIC. Do you use English as a second language or is there something else that is posing a mental block of you? -^StormRider 21:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Feisty aren't you? LOL. Is this your way of saying that you can't admit when you're wrong? Bottom line is, West Ridge Academy is not a therapeutic (note how to spell therapeutic) school, it is a residential treatment facility. If they were a therapeutic school, they would be LICENSED as such. Sorry you have trouble understanding that and are so upset about it. Incivility is duly noted. -- Bonnie--67.186.232.15 (talk) 23:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

3RR warnings

I warned the newbie twice today for 3RR violations. Their edits are not neutral and are very typical of the same old editor that has been blocked on two previous occasions. I suspect that this will go the same way because of: 1) an inability to cooperate with others, 2) in ability to seek neutral reporting, 3) carrying a single axe to grind. I look forward to seeing this silliness end. -^StormRider 00:02, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I warned you for inappropriate warnings and reverting constructive edits. Are you in charge of this article, by the way? Are you somehow in a position to decide who can edit and who can't? Can anyone else weigh in on this? Are you disputing that you made a mistake about the type of license West Ridge Academy has? --BonnieStuver (talk) 00:07, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Bonnie/IP, please read WP:3RR for information on edit warring, which you were correctly warned against. Consensus is against you here on this talk page, so please continue discussing the matter here and try and make your case. Dayewalker (talk) 00:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

If BonnieStuver is the same Bonnie Stuver who works for the Utah Department of Human Services and is the licensor of West Ridge Academy, there may be a conflict of interest. You may want to consider posting proposed edits to the talk page first if there is a conflict. Alanraywiki (talk) 00:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The article was incorrect, I helped correct it, and now I'm being warned. Are you people insane or does it always work this way here? There is no consensus to be reached if the facts are apparent, I linked twice and discussed my proposed edits. This is highly inappropriate. --BonnieStuver (talk) 00:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

You were reverted because the vast majority of your edits are POV and have been proved POV on multiple occasions in the past. Your edits also strongly, as in identical, to the edits of a user who has been banned twice. As an editor, I could not care less about the silliness over calling it a therapeutic school or not; or even whether WRA must comply with the Utah rules for therapeutic schools (which by the way you have not addressed). However, what I will refuse to accept is POV edits on this article.

WRA specifically is known as a non-denominational school. There is no official relationship with the LDS Church. Those are the facts and have been supported by multiple references; all of which you ignored.

The school is not controversial...except maybe to the a small minority of the students who have attended. Then again, these same students are the ones who needed some very specific needs, none of which belong to paragons of truth, personal responsibility, and honesty. In fact, it is because they have problems with these virtues that resulted in their attendance.

Do not edit the article until you have discussed your edits here first. It is unfortunate, but with the POV edits you insist upon it is apparent that there are going to be problems. Working cooperatively with other editors will result in your edits being successful additions to the article. Cheers. -^StormRider 03:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Bonnie, if you are "correcting" the article, are you doing so based on reliable sources? tedder (talk) 03:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Tedder, Yes I am. I provided these links:

http://www.hslic.utah.gov/db_results.asp?corp_name=west+ridge+academy&service=%25&SS=%25&county=%25&Submit=Search http://www.hslic.utah.gov/db_results.asp?corp_name=&county=%25&service=Therapeutic+School

Storm Rider: You are incorrect on all fronts and clearly have POV. Why are you hounding this article so much, by the way? You clearly don't know what you're talking about. Do you have some connection to this school? I won't remind you to be civil, since you clearly know the rules around here. But just because this is the Internet does not mean you should be so disrespectful. If you continue I will simply ignore you for those reasons and seek consensus with others. --BonnieStuver (talk) 03:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Hounding this article? Hmm, let's investigate this point. I watch hundreds of articles and edit a multiple of that. You edit this sole article and never have looked at another to edit. If there is a perversion of interest, please be honest and admit that you have an axe to grind. You have one interest on all of Wikipedia and it is this single article.

Being civil? Alas, another twisted perspective..."earth to Storm Rider" were the words. No, not even close to civil.

You have provided no evidence for any of your points, but you have shared your vaunted opinion. The problem is that opinions of editors are meaningless. Wikipedia requries reliable sources for all statements of fact. Without them, your edits will continue to be reverted. However, if you choose to work cooperatively with other editors you will not only learn how be edit in a neutral manner, but also see your edits become part of improving the article.

What is so suprising about this is you, as a "new" editors, don't even know me from Adam and yet you have this strong grudge. You have been reverted by several editors and yet you reserve all hostility for me. I am blushing with your attention, but it is telling. I smell a previous editor at work that was blocked. Your edits are identical and your methods reek of the same style; I mean for a trained "journalist".

Now enough with the personal diatribe. Do you have any proposals for the article? If so, please propose them and so that we can discuss them. -^StormRider 08:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

(OD) Just to clarify, BonnieStuver (talk · contribs) has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet. Dayewalker (talk) 17:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Film reference

An editor is adding content that appears to be unsupported by the references given. A reference is made to the home page of the film 8: The Mormon Proposition, but the home page makes no reference to West Ridge Academy (see film home page). Likewise, the site reference for mormongulag.com makes no reference to the film. The content will need to be supported by reliable sources to remain. Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 00:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Neither of the two sites meet the standards of reliable sources. You need something that a professional has verified and written about. --^StormRider 00:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

My Edits

Just to be sure that I'm not a vandal, I've added two things to this article and removed one unnecessary, cumbersome sentence. I added the site critical of the facility, since it has been around for quite some time and to add balance to this article. I made it clear that the site was a critical one. I also added Mary Ellen Smoot to the list of board of directors, since she appears to be the most noteworthy member on the board. I removed the sentence this sentence because it is not encyclopedic and isn't even a complete sentence: Spiraling out of control. Substance abuse, internet pornography, rude defiant behavior, and authority issues.

If you have any issues I guess this is the place to discuss them. Thanks --75.162.67.3 (talk) 19:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)