User talk:JimMcG89

Institute of Lutheran Theology moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Institute of Lutheran Theology, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C} 23:21, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Institute of Lutheran Theology (October 23)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by K.e.coffman were:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Institute of Lutheran Theology and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Institute of Lutheran Theology, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

K.e.coffman (talk) 04:10, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello, JimMcG89! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! K.e.coffman (talk) 04:10, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Greetings,

I am also sending this via email, my preferred form of communication.

Only 17 out of 53 total citations are now linked to ILT. Some more subjective sounding paragraphs have been deleted to make it look less like a student prospectus.

As far as Conflict of Interest goes:

1) I am neither a faculty member of ILT, nor a staff member of any kind, nor am I receiving any salary or compensation from the school.

2) I am also not taking classes there.

3) I am a Lutheran. If that constitutes a conflict of interest, are you going to ask anyone submitting Catholic, Jewish or Atheist content if they are Catholic, Jewish or Atheist? Is Wikipedia going to make people submit to a religious test in order to submit religious content?

Regarding citations:

As I said before, that is a better number than pages already published apples to apples for other Lutheran seminary web pages.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concordia_Theological_Seminary

3 out of the 6 total references are from the seminary's website.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concordia_Seminary

1 out of 4 total references are from the seminary's website.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luther_Seminary

3 out of 6 total references are from the seminary's website.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lutheran_School_of_Theology_at_Chicago

2 out of 2 total references are from outside websites.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_Lutheran_Seminary

2 out of 2 total references are from the seminary's website.

For the article I submitted:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Institute_of_Lutheran_Theology

17 out of 53 total citations are from ILT, 36 are exterior sources. So 1/3 are interior, 2/3s are exterior. That is significantly better than similar pages already published on Wikipedia.

So apples to apples, this draft is better cited than 5 other existing Lutheran seminary articles currently on Wikipedia. If you are going to refuse mine, you should take the other 5 down. If you are going to leave the other 5 up, you should accept mine.

Respectfully,

JimMcG89

Draft:Institute of Lutheran Theology

It looks like you sent me an email. I prefer to communicate on Wiki, so I'm responding here. I left a comment on the draft; perhaps you did not see it? Here it is:

• Too many citations to [www.ilt.edu/ www.ilt.edu/], the institution's own web site, which makes the page read like a student prospectus. Please provide citations to third-party, independent sources. Wikipedia is not a replacement for the org's own web site. Please also see WP:REFB to see how to convert bare URLs to proper citations. If you have a connection to the institution, please see WP:COI.

--K.e.coffman (talk) 03:22, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, JimMcG89. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page Draft:Institute of Lutheran Theology, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
• disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:29, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Institute of Lutheran Theology

Hi, thank you for confirming your lack of a COI (conflict of interest) in re: this institution. For the rest, I prefer to communicate on Wiki, so please feel free to post further comments here or on my Talk page, and I would be glad to respond. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:00, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Are there any remaining changes to be made or is the revision satisfactory? JimMcG89 (talk) 01:21, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

The section "Programs of Study" is unnecessary; people can find out this information on the institution's website. Also, please remove external links from the body of the article; this is considered promotional. Compare: "the Augsburg Lutheran Churches" vs "the Augsburg Lutheran Churches". Wikipedia cannot be used as a source. It still looks promotional to me, such as unsourced passages like this one:

• "It also has a academic certificate program which offers certificates in Bethel Bible Series Teacher Training, a Faith & Life Certificate, a Pastoral Ministry Certificate, and a Youth & Family Certificate. It also work with officers of denominations and seminary officials in other countries on establishing programs at the certificate level, which is the best option for the majority of their students, and graduate level for their students whom they put forward as likely candidates to become professors."

In general, the shorter the entry, the less promotional it would look. Compare with the article that I created on a German research institution: Center for Military History and Social Sciences of the Bundeswehr. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:31, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

- - - - - - - - - - 

OK, I made more changes in line with your suggestions. Is the article OK now?

Respectfully,

JimMcG89

PS: Sorry for my grumpy tone earlier. I am being treated for stage 4 cancer and am currently unemployed and I was doing this to have something to do and it turned out to be more complicated than I anticipated. Sorry for the combative tone in my earlier correspondence.

- - - - - - - - - - - - 

Recent Edits

I have substantially shortened it up further and removed redundant information and more links to the seminary. Removing all links to the seminary would gut the article in my opinion - unless you are willing to let the information stand unsupported, then I could remove more links. Other seminary pages have some links besides the official page in theirs:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concordia_Theological_Seminary References 1, 2 & 5 (50%) are from the seminary.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luther_Seminary References 2, 3 & 6 (50%) are from the seminary.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Lutheran_Theological_Seminary References 1 & 2 (100%) are from the seminary (which is united with the college).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity_Lutheran_Seminary References 1 out of 1 (100%) is from the seminary

My new draft of the Institute of Lutheran Theology page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Institute_of_Lutheran_Theology References 1, 2, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 & 20 (approx 25%) are from the seminary, approx 75% are external.

So I've removed 13 links. If there is something more to be done, let me know.

Respectfully,

JimMcG89

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Institute of Lutheran Theology

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Draft:Institute of Lutheran Theology, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. News Team Assemble!^[talk?] 00:06, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

New Edits Made by JimMcG89

I have deleted a lot of material and there is now only one link to the school website, all others have been scrubbed and a lot of content has been deleted. I was told that this page had been nominated for speedy deletion. It also said there was a button to press to contest that. No such button is anywhere on the page at this typing. So I hope the page can be reconsidered based upon the large edit I just made which should remove the objection of too many links to the school and having it look too much like an advertisement. I would invite the reviewer to compare it to existing Wikipedia pages of other Lutheran seminaries:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concordia_Theological_Seminary

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luther_Seminary

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Lutheran_Theological_Seminary

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity_Lutheran_Seminary

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lutheran_Theological_Seminary_at_Gettysburg

I think my current edit compares favorably with existing pages of other Lutheran seminaries already on Wikipedia.

Sincerely,

JimMcG89

Your submission at Articles for creation: Institute of Lutheran Theology (November 26)

{{subst:Afc decline|full=Draft:Institute of Lutheran Theology|cv=no|reason=v|details=|reason2=corp|details2=|comment=Multiple references to blogs (unreliable), a Wikipedia article (an example of [[WP:CIRCULAR|circular referencing), a directory (which wouldn't count as a significant mention), and a few sources about organizations talking about themselves (not independent). You can see where I'd be reluctant to accept.|sig=yes}}

Edits made to Institute of Lutheran Theology 11/26/2018

Original footnote from school deleted

Footnotes 1, 2 & 3 are Ad Fontes sources about the schools beginning. To remove them is to remove any reference to the school's founding. WordAlone and Lutheran CORE had much to do with the Institute of Lutheran Theology's (ILT) founding, but ILT is now a wholly separate organization and is not in any way controlled by either Lutheran CORE or WordAlone.

Removed: Original footnote 4 Bielfeldt, Dennis (18 February 2015). "Disputationes: Growth of the Institute of Lutheran Theology".

Changed: Existing links 4 & 6 were changed to more direct references.

Removed: Link original footnote 7 which was attached to Library.

Existing links 7 & 8 by Dr. Robert Benne are from different accredited schools which explain why he is notable.

Removed: Former link 10 by Dr. Dennis Bielfeldt was self-referential. Existing link 9 is from another unrelated school which he previously taught at full time and is now an "Emeritus Professor of Philosophy" in semi-retirement with. His Emeritus status with the school is a sign of distinguished service. The Institute of Lutheran Theology has no relationship to South Dakota State.

Removed: Former link 11 by John Eidsmoe's name. Existing link 10 (an unrelated organization) shows why he is notable.

Removed: former link 12 by Paul Hinlicky's name. Existing link 11 is to an unrelated school which he formerly taught at full time and now is an Emeritus member of. The Institute of Lutheran Theology has no relationship to Roanoke College.

Removed: former link 12 by the name of Jack Kilcrease. Existing notes 12 & 13 changed. [Aquinas College] & Concordia Theological Seminary have no relationship to the Institute of Lutheran Theology.

Existing links 14 & 15 by the name of Lucas V. Woodford should be left as is. The blog (link 14) is from the Reporter, the Official Newspaper of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod. It is not a personal, self-published blog. DOXOLOGY is a national organization for the spiritual care of Lutheran Pastors, so this article also goes to District President Rev. Dr. Lucas V. Woodford's notability. Neither The Reporter or DOXOLOGY have any kind of relationship to the Institute of Lutheran Theology.

Respectfully,

JimMcG89

Addendum to above 11/26/2018

Prior reviewer [I dream of horses] has a Bias / [Conflict of interest] against Organized religion shown under her '[religious and political beliefs]' box.

My edits on your draft

Hi Jim,

I just made some changes to your article and am going to try to get it out of draft. I am messaging you just so you know. If you want to work on it between now and when it is approved, the best thing you can do is add reliable sources--especially those appearing as scholarly. But even a newspaper article will do.

If you are displeased at me for removing something, perhaps you could add it back, but it might work best if you wait until after it gets out of draft.

Wikipedia is not the place it was a decade ago. They didn't used to be as strict about new articles. This is why the other seminaries have inadequate articles, yet are not in draft. Although of course there is an antichristian bias on Wikipedia, you won't get far complaning about it. Instead you just have to cope with it. The good news is that generally even the more antichristian ones will let you keep the Christian content on Christian pages. Since yours is a Christian page to begin with, you should be okay. --Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:34, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Moved Stellhorn article out of draft

I'm assuming you are okay with this.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 21:32, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes. Thank-you!

Frederick William Stellhorn moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Frederick William Stellhorn, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. Most likely notable, but almost every citation is primary. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:13, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Support removed

I had everything I wrote supported, then somebody removed those links saying they were “excessive.”

I don’t think some Wikipedia editors understand how graduate level scholarship is done at all. I just completed a master’s thesis and where I got lazy and quoted a secondary source, my thesis advisor had me look up and cite the >>>PRIMARY SOURCE<<<

I have wrote several, very detailed articles now and I keep getting told to *NOT* use primary sources, but rather to use secondary ones.

Also, most reviewers so far do not seem like they are knowledgable in what they are critiquing. It’s like sending an article on physics to be corrected by a psychology instructor.

At any rate, the original version I wrote was well supported with books, journal articles and internet sources from credible websites. Later someone removed most of those support sources. Now I’m told there is insufficient support. First too much, now not enough. JimMcG89 (talk) 23:45, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes! This is strange, isn't it? Wikipedia actually has a policy on over-citing an article. It is definitely a catch-22, where if you overcite, it is wrong, and if you under-cite it is misconstrued and is "wrong" too... the way real encyclopedias, textbooks, scholarship, etc. work is that there is an element of trust already existing within a scholarly clique/discipline. This helps reduce this factor in real life. But wikipedia is not like that. The one thing you can do to help prevent trouble with these people is learn to use the citation templates, like "Cite Web" on the Institute for Lutheran Theology draft. I know it is senseless, but you are less likely to have people criticizing your references if you use a template to cite.

As for issues with knowledge, they actually deleted a small Lutheran denomination's article, Independent Lutheran Diocese. Specifically, the delete-ers thought that the footnoted print source used with the article was a directory, like a phone book--even though the citation lists several pages for the denomination. It went unnoticed for years, but I recently re-created the article with material copy-and-pasted from a google cache of a Wikipedia clone. It was immediately bannered, but I was polite to the person who flagged it for notability and he removed it right away without saying anything.

Over a decade ago, an article on one of Luther's minor theological concepts was nearly deleted as a "hoax" by multiple editors--eventually one editor called out the others for being ignorant if they had never heard of Martin Luther before.

As for the level of sources, they prefer tertiary sources more than anything else. So the top level source for us is the Christian Cyclopedia on the LCMS page or the 1899 Lutheran Cyclopedia on Google Books. Second to that is secondary sources, and last primary sources... but this is only for establishing notability. You can use whatever source you want, if notability is not contested by anyone. Notability is also an extremely subjective concept. On Wikipedia, there are secularists who would like to delete nearly everything involving religion, or harass anyone who doesn't think like them in a nasty way until they leave Wikipedia. On the other hand, there are so many individual church articles that even though they burn one at the stake every few weeks or so, it will be a long time before they run out of heretical articles to execute. And even in 2019, some of them win at the AfD reviews. You might find this discussion interesting: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Association_of_Baptist_Churches_in_Ireland_churches_(2nd_nomination) Notice that it just barely survived deletion for now.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 00:32, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Frederick William Stellhorn has been accepted

Frederick William Stellhorn, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

K.e.coffman (talk) 17:20, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Help on Criticism of the Catholic Church

Was wondering if you could help over at Criticism of the Catholic Church. An editor came in today and removed over 100,000 characters or whatever it is in one day, both well-referenced material and the more stub-like sections alike.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 01:02, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

It is late now, I’ll look it over tomorrow.